Tag: authoritarianism

bookmark_borderThere’s nothing ugly about individual rights

Posted on by Marissa

A few weeks ago I read a letter to the editor in the Boston Globe which I strongly disagree with. Numerous people in our society seem to share this viewpoint, particularly with respect to the coronavirus pandemic, and I find it deeply wrong. In a letter published on May 16, 2020, Jeffrey Halprin of Natick wrote:

I read selfishness disguised as patriotism in the comments of a gun shop owner who sued to reopen, when he said that “the second Amendment should not be suspended during a health pandemic.” I realized how close the connection is between the quarantine protesters and the gun lobby. Both are all about “me” instead of “us.”

Guns make it easy to sit in a high window and randomly pick off dozens of people listening to county music in Las Vegas. Not my problem. Uncontrollable virus racing through nursing homes, hospitals, and neighborhoods? Ditto.

The Second Amendment, written, ironically enough, to protect the community, with a “well-regulated militia,” is now the cover that people use to turn their back on the community so that they can sell a few more guns.

As for the people who turn their backs on the request to pitch in and sacrifice until we find a way to keep the virus from randomly picking off their neighbors? What an ugly way to live.

In this letter, Halprin is harshly criticizing gun shop owners who fought for their right to open, as well as protesters who have been bravely standing up to authoritarian government policies in general. His criticisms are baseless.

As inconvenient as it may be to those who value the community above all else, people have rights. Specifically, people have the right to live their lives as they please, so long as they do not violate the rights of anyone else.

People are not obligated to take on the problems of others and make them their own. Mass shootings such as the one in Las Vegas, as horrific as they may be, are not the fault of innocent gun owners. They are the fault of the mass shooters. Innocent gun owners are not required to “pitch in” to solve this problem by sacrificing their freedoms.

Similarly, people are not obligated to sacrifice their freedom of movement, assembly, speech, or religion, their privacy, or their livelihoods in order to lower the risk of virus transmission for the community as a whole.

A world in which people are required to put the needs of others above their own would be a truly ugly place to live. Halprin is demanding that each person “pitch in and sacrifice” by giving up a certain amount of freedom for the sake of the community. But how much does he think people should be required to sacrifice? Where is the line drawn between being sufficiently community-minded versus unacceptably selfish? And more importantly, what is the purpose of demanding that everyone pitch in and sacrifice for the sake of the community, when by doing this you are depriving every member of the community of the right to live according to his or her own preferences and values, the very thing that makes life worth living? This might create a safer society, with fewer shootings and fewer cases of the coronavirus. But it would also create a society in which people are not free to live their lives in the way that makes them happy, in which people are not entitled to use their time and energy on what they believe is important, and in which no person’s life truly belongs to him or her. The fact that other people are sacrificing for your benefit, just as you are sacrificing for theirs, does not even begin to make up for the loss of freedom and self-determination. All that is accomplished by requiring people to put others first, is to create a world where everyone is worse off.

Freedom is not something that should be pitched in and sacrificed. It is something that rightly belongs to each individual. The honorable thing to do is to defend one’s rights, as gun store owners and anti-lockdown protesters are doing, not to meekly give these rights up.

A world in which each person is free to make his or her own decisions and live in the way that best suits him or her is best for all people. There is nothing wrong with valuing the “me” instead of “us.” Nor is there anything wrong with focusing on one’s own self, as long as one does not harm other people in the process. The idea of individual liberty is simple, logical, fair, egalitarian, and beautiful. To insult people who are bravely standing up for their rights, because they have not demonstrated what you consider to be an adequate amount of concern for the community? Now that is ugly.

bookmark_borderThe most offensive tweet I have ever seen

Posted on by Marissa

Over the years, I have seen numerous ridiculous and offensive things on Twitter. But I may have found the most offensive tweet yet. In the below exchange, Bethany Mandel very reasonably explains her opposition to Covid-19 lockdown orders. Joe Lockhart responds by… calling her a killer. Yes, you are reading that right.

Continue reading “The most offensive tweet I have ever seen”

bookmark_borderSocial distancing snitches

Posted on by Marissa

A recent New York Times article about “social distancing informants” describes behavior that is truly disturbing to anyone who values liberty or individual rights. This phenomenon is exactly what it sounds like – people who rat out and publicly shame others for violating authoritarian measures designed to stop the coronavirus.

The article describes these excuses for people as “Americans frustrated by fellow citizens violating government orders to wear masks, close nonessential businesses, and refrain from gathering in groups.” Some of them “said they thought that calling out violators was a civic duty and a matter of public health.”

Nothing could be further from the truth. To criticize fellow citizens who are doing nothing wrong is the opposite of a civic duty – it is morally wrong. It is incomprehensible to me why someone would be frustrated by people minding their own business.

In one example, a Wisconsin cardiologist attended an anti-lockdown protest and posted a picture on Facebook. A man named Kevin Rusch saw the photo on Facebook and was “furious.” He decided to contact the hospital at which the cardiologist worked, and shared the photo with his network of friends, warning people to visit the hospital “at your own risk.” As a result of Rusch’s actions, the hospital suspended the doctor, and congratulatory messages poured in on Facebook. How could someone be happy about an innocent person, who did nothing wrong, losing his job? How could someone be “furious” at a person who did absolutely nothing wrong?

The cardiologist wrote a thoughtful post on Facebook calling the events an “orchestrated slander of my name and reputation.” He added:

“Most disturbing was the vulgarity involved and a clear sense of an orchestrated political hit job… They vandalized my home by scattering feces on the front steps prompting me to file a police report. They also mocked Christianity. Nobody should have to put up with this evil. No human has the right to inflict this pain on others. America’s Constitution enshrines the right to assemble peacefully and voice opinions. Blood from our forefathers has paid for this right countless times… We shouldn’t be so willing to give up these rights when we feel the government is on the wrong course… To those who showed an unsubstantiated vile toward me and my religion, I feel sad for you, and I pray that you find peace.”

In another instance of social distancing snitching, when a Colorado restaurant, C & C Coffee & Kitchen, bravely opened in defiance of the governor’s orders, dozens of people flooded its Yelp page with complaints, and one customer named Nick Whitehill filed a complaint with the county health department in addition to posting photos on Twitter to “shame” the restaurant. A lovely person on Twitter wrote, “You’ve given up your right to treatment at a hospital. Worms for brains.”

Another individual, Delaney Kalea of Alabama, witnessed a group of teenagers committing the horrific crime of hanging outside a bowling alley while dancing and playing football. She “made the responsible decision as we were driving off to call the cops.” She added: “My blood boils almost every day when I think about this. Where is the human decency?”

Excuse me? How could someone’s blood boil at the thought of people doing absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever? How is it “responsible” to call the cops on people minding their own business? You, Delaney Kalea, are the one who lacks human decency for so harshly criticizing innocent people. You are a bully.

Nadine Campbell of New York publicly shamed people on Facebook for existing on a beach. “People were milling around. It was really upsetting,” she complained. How can it be upsetting to witness people minding their own business and doing nothing wrong?

On Twitter, people use the hashtag “#FloridaMorons” to describe those who have committed the evil deed of visiting beaches.

On Facebook, I personally have witnessed people use the word “idiots” to describe those who are bravely protesting against authoritarianism in Boston and the term “selfish disease spreading morons” for those who go to the beach. 

How dare these individuals personally attack their fellow citizens by calling them idiots and morons? This behavior is cruel, mean-spirited, and nasty. It is bullying.

Other snitches persecute their fellow citizens on local websites such as Patch. “Four teenage girls with lacrosse sticks and white hoodies just walked past our place. Parents, you need to do better,” posted one individual.

Do better? The teenage girls did nothing wrong. How would it be “better” for parents to prevent their children from doing something that the children have every right to do?

My hometown newspaper, the Melrose Weekly News, has provided additional examples of social distancing snitching. Every week in the local police log, there are entries describing citizens calling the police on such innocent activities as a father and daughter shooting hoops, people exercising in parks, children building a bridge in the woods, small groups of people gathering in backyards, and DPW workers performing maintenance work on a field. Also according to this newspaper, a couple from Melrose who visited Ogunquit, Maine, were accosted while eating lunch near their car and told to go home so they would not spread the virus in Maine.

In Manhattan, one excuse for a human being put up posters reading: “Dear jogger, bicycle douchebag, yuppie/millennial, narcissist swine: Put on a f***ing mask. Please respect your community and the lives of others. You do not live alone.”

Narcissist swine? Seriously? How dare you so crudely and nastily insult your fellow citizens? What is the purpose of stereotyping people based on their age and socioeconomic status? How does jogging or biking without a mask disrespect your community or the lives of others? And what is meant by “You do not live alone?” Lots of people do live alone. If this sentence is supposed to mean that everyone who lives in a community is connected somehow, I suppose this is true to some extent, but that does not give people the right to control the lives and decisions of others. People have a right to decide for themselves whether or not to wear a mask. It is possible that not wearing a mask might indirectly affect others, but this indirect effect does not outweigh each person’s right to make decisions about his/her own body. The person who made these posters, by presuming that he or she has the right to dictate what others wear, demonstrates a lack of respect for the lives of others. The person who made these posters is truly a narcissist swine.

Wisconsin talk radio host Vicki McKenna described the mentality of the social distancing snitches as “a creepy Orwellian sensibility.” She’s got that right. To criticize, shame, or attempt to punish innocent people who are doing nothing wrong is an act of aggression. The attitudes, words, and actions of these social distancing informants are morally wrong and despicable.

bookmark_borderThis weekend in overzealous social distancing enforcement…

Posted on by Marissa

In one of the latest examples of overzealous attempts to fight the spread of COVID-19, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham banned a drive-in movie theater from reopening.

According to the Washington Times, city officials in Las Vegas, New Mexico believed that the state government had given the drive-in the OK, and a showing of “Trolls World Tour” and “Doolittle” was planned. But then the governor called the county’s emergency management department and told them the drive-in wasn’t allowed to open after all. “The governor’s office said they would treat the drive-in just like any other movie theater,” said Mayor Louie Trujillo.

This makes no sense. A drive-in, where people sit in their cars in an outdoor field watching a movie on a huge screen, is completely different than a movie theater, where everyone is sitting in an indoor auditorium. If there is any form of entertainment well-suited to social distancing requirements, it would be a drive-in. I can think of no reason why a governor would ban a drive-in from operating, unless she is attempting to be as much of a jerk as possible and to ensure that none of her citizens are able to do anything remotely fun, ever.

In separate but similar news, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot dispatched three squad cars and two unmarked cars filled with armed officers… to shut down a church service.

Pastor Courtney Lewis was in the middle of his sermon at the Cornerstone Baptist Church when the police began to bang loudly on the front doors.

“All we are seeking is the same consideration and trust that is being tendered toward the liquor stores, abortion clinics, and Walmart,” the pastor said, according to the Geller Report. He described the arrival of the armed cops as “like the Soviet-style KGB… the only thing she hasn’t done yet is beat the doors down and arrest our members.”

Pastor Lewis wrote a letter to U.S. Attorney John Lausch which can be read here.

bookmark_borderCoronavirus vaccine should not be mandatory

Posted on by Marissa

When a vaccine for the coronavirus is eventually developed, it will be a huge benefit to those who want the protection and peace of mind that it brings. There will also almost certainly be a minority of people who – for one reason or another – would prefer not to receive the vaccine.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

That’s why it’s disturbing that Harvard Law School Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz said in an interview:

If a safe vaccine is to be developed for Covid-19, I hope it’s mandated, and I will defend it… Let me put it very clearly, you have no constitutional right to endanger the public and spread the disease, even if you disagree. You have no right not to be vaccinated, you have no right not to wear a mask, you have no right to open up your business… And if you refuse to be vaccinated, the state has the power to literally take you to a doctor’s office and plunge a needle into your arm.

Like most proponents of forcing people to undergo medial procedures against their will, Dershowitz points to the Supreme Court’s decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), in which the court ruled that states may require people to be vaccinated if their boards of health deem it necessary for public health or safety. As World Net Daily puts it: “If any individual is allowed to act without regard to the welfare of others, true liberty does not exist, the court argued.”

I strongly disagree with this school of thought. Each person has a right to do anything he or she wishes, as long as those actions do not violate the rights of anyone else. What determines whether an action violates someone’s rights? One must compare the effect of the action on other people against the effect of banning the action on the person or people who wish to do the action.

In the case of vaccines, the question is: Which has a more direct impact on a person, having other people existing in the world who have not been vaccinated, or being forced to be vaccinated against one’s will?

As Dershowitz and the Jacobson court note, people are affected somewhat by the existence of other people who do not get vaccines. The percentage of people in a community who have or have not been vaccinated does affect each individual’s risk of catching a disease. People who are not able to get vaccines for medical reasons can catch illnesses from those who have chosen not to get the vaccine.

However, this impact is indirect. Actually getting sick has a large and direct impact on someone’s life, but a person who hasn’t gotten a vaccine does not cause anyone to become sick. The disease does. The presence of unvaccinated people merely affects a person’s risk of catching a disease; it does not cause a person to catch a disease.

On the other hand, being required to undergo a medical procedure such as vaccination affects a person directly. It involves a person’s skin being pierced by a needle and a substance being injected into his or her body.

A person’s right to make decisions about his/her own body outweighs any supposed right to make decisions about the bodies of other people in order to manage one’s own disease risk. In other words, the importance of being able to decide for oneself whether or not to get vaccines outweighs the importance of being able to decide whether or not the people around you get vaccines.

A country in which the government has the power to take someone to a doctor’s office and plunge a needle into their arm is a country without liberty in any meaningful sense of the word. To claim, as the Jacobson court did, that there is no true liberty without being able to control other people’s actions that might have an indirect impact on you, is ridiculous.

I would likely choose to get the coronavirus vaccine when it comes out. But it should be my choice.

bookmark_borderGym owner defies restrictions in MA

Posted on by Marissa

In my home state of Massachusetts, a gym owner is defying government restrictions and encouraging others to do the same.

Dave Blondin, owner of Prime Fitness & Nutrition in Oxford, MA, opened his business on Monday, even though Massachusetts will not allow gyms to open until “phase 3” of its reopening plan. Monday was the beginning of phase 1.

“Enough is enough,” Blondin said, according to the Boston Herald. “We need our sanity back. Gyms should join me. Every gym owner is essential… We need to stand our ground. We have to open our gyms.”

“They’re so happy and smiling being able to work out again,” he said of gym members. “It’s so important for their mental health, anxiety, stress, depression.” He added that members are unanimously supporting him and have offered to pay any fines that the gym incurs.

One gym member, a nurse, said: “I think it’s a great idea. It definitely helps with the mental health… I don’t think there’s any issue going on whatsoever.”

Blondin said in a Facebook video: “I would like to call upon all other gyms in Massachusetts to do the same. Whether you’re big, whether you’re small, whether you’re a studio, whatever you are, start opening your doors. We’re all in this together. If Walmart that’s right down the street can sit there and have 356 cars there, then we can work out.”

So far Blondin has received a verbal warning and a written warning from the Oxford Board of Health. The law authorizes a $300 fine for each day the gym is open, as well as eventually a cease and desist order. Yesterday, 7 News captured an exchange between Blondin and board of health agent Tom Purcell during which Purcell asked Blondin if there was anything he could to convince him to comply. “Nope, let me open my business and get back to my livelihood,” he replied.

Speaking to 7 News, Blondin said, “It’s not fair. We’ve been out of business for too long now. The eight weeks have gone by, and I’ve used my PPP (paycheck protection program) funds, and that’s it. Unless they want to fund me again, this is over.”

“It takes a lot to stand up to everybody who’s staying closed,” said gym member Samantha Chamberlain.

Blondin said to Channel 5/WCVB:”If the worst thing that they’re gonna do is give me a citation… I’m trying to choose my freedom. Yeah, I’ll take the citation.”

Town Manager Jennifer Callahan said she has received “many angry calls and emails from residents calling on the town to shutter this business immediately.” Why someone would make an angry call or send an angry email about people minding their own business is beyond me. Blondin and his members are doing nothing wrong, and I admire their courage in standing up to government overreach.

bookmark_borderRebellious gym owner arrested in California

Posted on by Marissa

In Oceanside, California, gym owner Lou Uridel was arrested for opening his business in defiance of the state’s stay-at-home order. Upon being released, he has continued to defy the order by re-opening the gym. The police department stated that it plans to cite Uridel for each day the gym remains in operation. The maximum penalty for each citation is $1,000 and/or 90 days in jail.

Reportedly, police told Uridel that they would arrest every customer if he reopened his gym. However, after consulting with his lawyer, he was advised that police did not have the power to do that, and so he decided to re-open this past Wednesday.

“There’s some members who kind of shy away from that and there’s some members who say, you know what, if they’re going to take me away in handcuffs for working out, then they can go ahead and do it,” Uridel said.

Salute to everyone who falls into the second category and is willing to take a stand against government overreach.

bookmark_borderNorth Carolina tattoo artist arrested for opening store

Posted on by Marissa

In another example of government overreach, a tattoo artist in Apex, North Carolina was arrested for opening his shop and charged criminally for violating Governor Roy Cooper’s stay-at-home order. Matthew “Jax” Myers, owner of Apex Tattoo Factory, faces up to 60 days in jail or a $1,000 fine.

Myers announced his intended opening on social media, and police arrived on scene shortly after the shop opened at 1:00 p.m.

Even facing arrest, Myers stuck to his principles. “While understanding of and generally cooperative with officers, he refused to come into compliance with the Proclamation and was subsequently arrested without further incident,” a police statement read.

Like Michigan barber Karl Manke, Myers said that he had attempted to apply for unemployment benefits and for a small business loan, but was denied. He had no other way to pay his mortgage and was concerned that his business would die.

“I’m a law-abiding citizen,” said Myers in an interview with TV station WRAL. “I’ve done nothing wrong… If people are willing to take the risk, it’s their body and their choice.”

As Western Journal columnist Andrew Sciascia points out, this is exactly the argument that liberals make with regards to abortion. Why does it not apply with regards to getting a tattoo, or any other activity that affects one’s coronavirus risk?

The Mayor of Apex, Jacques Gilbert, seemed to express support for Myers to WRAL: “Whatever the consequences are to his decision, I’m gonna be there after it all and extend my hand to him and say, ‘I’m in this with you and I support you and we’re gonna get through this together.'”

Read the Facebook post by Apex Tattoo Factory below or at this link:

Continue reading “North Carolina tattoo artist arrested for opening store”

bookmark_borderMichigan barbershop defies lockdown order with the help of militia

Posted on by Marissa

In another example of brave resistance to authoritarianism, a Michigan barbershop has opened in defiance of the state’s stay-at-home order.

On Friday, when barber Karl Manke, 77, attempted to open his shop in Owosso, Michigan, state police served him with an order from the Attorney General’s office telling him to close.

Yesterday, he opened shop again, this time with the help of the militia group the Michigan Home Guard, as well as dozens of other supporters. “Six troopers came in to enforce the governor’s order or to issue a cease or desist order so we are here to make sure he doesn’t get arrested,” said militia member Daniel Brewer. “We’re willing to stand in front of that door and block the entrance so the police will have no entry there today.”

Manke said that he had complied with the stay-at-home order for weeks but was denied unemployment benefits and had no choice but to open shop to earn a living. “I don’t need the governor to be my mother,” he said. “I’ll be open until Jesus walks in or until they arrest me.”

Reportedly the barbershop was filled with customers, with a line stretching down the block.

A legal victory took place today for Manke and his customers. Circuit Court Judge Matthew Stewart declined to sign a temporary restraining order against him. Additionally, Shiawassee County Sheriff Brian Begole announced that he would not enforce the stay-at-home order. “With limited resources, staffing and facilities, our priority focus will be on enforcing duly passed laws for the protection of Shiawassee County citizens,” he said. “I have decided, within my authority, that our office cannot and will not divert our primary resources and efforts towards enforcement of Governor Whitmer’s executive orders.”

Manke does face two misdemeanor charges and a $1000 fine.

At a press conference today, he said, “I’ve never seen this type of oppression by a government, ever, not even in the 60’s. The government is not my parent. Never has been…. If people don’t feel safe, they should stay home.”

Amen to that.

bookmark_borderColorado restaurant rebels against stay-at-home order

Posted on by Marissa

Salute to C&C Coffee and Kitchen, a Colorado restaurant that unabashedly opened yesterday in defiance of Governor Jared Polis’s stay-at-home order.

“We are standing for America, small businesses, the Constitution and against the overreach of our governor in Colorado!!” the restaurant tweeted.

A sign on the door read, “ATTENTION: Our freedom doesn’t end where your fear begins. If you are afraid to be within 6 feet of another person, do not enter this business!”

Many citizens of Castle Rock, Colorado seem to share these views about freedom, for the line to place orders wrapped around the building, and the tables and patio were full. According to owner April Arellano, approximately 500 customers showed up, almost double the number she typically sees on Mother’s Day.

“I’m so happy so many people came out to support the Constitution and stand up for what is right,” Arellano said. “We did our time. We did our two weeks. We did more than two weeks… and we were failing. We had to do something.”

“I know a lot of things are ran by fear,” she added. “I don’t have that fear.”

These sentiments make perfect sense and are something Americans should live by as the country emerges from its government-imposed lockdown.

Those who are fearful of catching the coronavirus – whether because they are in the over-60 age group, have lung problems or compromised immune systems, or simply would rather play it safe – can simply avoid going to businesses or other public places that are expected to be crowded. They can receive groceries, household items, and prescriptions (if needed) via delivery. Or perhaps some restaurants and stores will cater to the more risk-averse and limit their capacity so that a 6-foot distance between people can be maintained.

At the same time, people who do not have as much fear of catching the virus must be free to live their lives and run their businesses in the way that they choose, just as April Arellano and her customers did on Sunday. Placing a sign on the door warning people not to enter if they are afraid of being within 6 feet of another person is a great way to enable people to make informed decisions in managing their risk. Customers who are willing to take the risk of being inside a crowded restaurant can do so, while those who would rather not take the risk can choose not to go inside.

The bottom line is that people with and without fear have the right to live according to their own values. Those on the more risk-averse end of the spectrum have no right to impose their judgment on others, but unfortunately that is what has been happening all over the world for weeks and months as governments have imposed restrictions on people’s privacy, freedom of assembly, and freedom of movement in an effort to combat the virus. Those who prioritize safety have the right to take any measures they deem advisable to reduce their risk, but they do not have the right to restrict the activities of others in an attempt to reduce their risk.

Therefore, C&C Coffee and Kitchen did absolutely nothing wrong by opening. The owners, employees, and customers should be saluted for their bravery and defiance.