Tags
Consequences of police militarization
13 Tuesday Apr 2021
Posted in Democratic Institutions
Previous articles
Reflections on Easter Sunday
These subjects also help one see connections among public beliefs, private knowledge, and responsible action. Eventually these thoughts may nourish hope, as Easter does.
Deep state is not so deep
Progressives insist to this day that Trump operated on behalf of Putin and Russia intelligence, for God knows how far back.
Economic regulation to make you suffer even more than you already do
Private cynicism accents the public dishonesty: “Let it happen as you say, Fred: put these people out of work. Teenagers don’t qualify for unemployment anyway, and they don’t have families to support.”
Do you want regulators, or anyone to restrict what you see and say?
One side hoists the American flag and attacks the Capitol. Another side appears stronger, more insistent, and altogether willing to tar its opponents with charges of racism. “Silence is violence,” they say. Once you feed that dog, you cannot stop feeding it.
Control of Public Discourse
If you convince people that government and large tech platforms need to police information in order to guarantee its accuracy, then you have control. Then you can decide what information remains in the public arena, and what information does not. Then you have the anti-democratic ideal of restricted speech.
Short takes from March and February
I gather, young man, that you wish to be a Member of Parliament. The first lesson that you must learn is, when I call for statistics about the rate of infant mortality, what I want is proof that fewer babies died when I was Prime Minister than when anyone else was Prime Minister. That is a political statistic. ~ Winston Churchill
Pervasive dishonesty and political victory
The last four and a half years present a master example in a key phenomenon related to truth during political conflict: when swords and knives come out, brains shut down. They must. You just want to survive. To do that, you destroy your opponents, without thought.
Bring on the Public Integrity Protection Agency
I used to think that efforts to restrict free speech in politics were fated to fail in the United States, ending in the same trash bin as socialism, communism, and free love in the Senate washroom. To propose ideas like regulation of speech was part of our free expression. You could criticize these proposals, but you could not object to their existence, or to their publication. You could only explain why they were bad ideas. When government officials propose bad ideas, however, you have to speak up, strongly and immediately.
Ownership, access, and free expression
Look where we have arrived. Indignant partisans demand that a few companies remove someone’s voice, and the companies comply! The companies can remove unpopular platforms, such as Parler, or unpopular individuals, such as the former president. They can remove people’s ability to communicate in the present and future, and they can wipe the record of all past communications. That is not the freedom we contemplated, or anticipated forty years ago.
Capitol Riot: Recent articles
Commentary about the Capitol riot has started to settle in. A week later, we see more reflection and deeper observation …
