The End of Government
The Era of Lawlessness
Free Speech in Crisis
Conflict is unavoidable, but there are institutions that exist to mediate disputes, such as freedom of speech. Without communication, there is no way to negotiate a compromise. Without the free exchange of ideas, the facts cannot be discovered and any position we take could easily be in error. Without protected expression, the disaffected have no way to properly vent. When people feel they are not being heard, and they cannot even get their message out to convince others to support them at the ballot box, that is when they do desperate things to get their message out – such as terrorism. The only way to prevent the use of “second-amendment solutions” is by the tireless pursuit of first-amendment solutions. Unfortunately, the same people pushing for government to control ever more of our lives, thereby giving us more to fight about, also push to erode the institution of free speech.
Preventing Oversight:
Politicians have weaponized government to silence their opponents. The press is under attack. Reporters are doxed (41). Bloggers wake up in the middle of the night to firecrackers hitting their walls (42). The FBI raids the homes of journalists and then hands over key secrets to their opposition in ongoing civil litigation (43). When undercover journalist David Daleiden, posing as a buyer, was able to acquire evidence that an abortion clinic was selling fetal parts in violation of the law, then handing that evidence over to the police, he was promptly charged with attempting to buy fetal parts (44). If he had really intended to go through with the purchase, why would he turn himself in? How are undercover journalists supposed to find the truth if not by posing as buyers?
Judicial gag orders are another example of weaponization. There have been several cases in the news of American citizens being terrorized by an out-of-control government and the victims were not even allowed the recourse of going to the media to exert political pressure on their behalf. When the voters don’t even know what evils their officers and judges are up to, how can they make an informed vote?
A few years ago, there were a series of raids on the homes of campaign consultants. Apparently, there are rules about what consultants can say to each other, which means that in theory police are authorized to investigate to find out if the rules are being followed. They broke into houses in the early morning and told the consultants and their families they could not even tell anyone that they were being investigated. One kid was not even allowed to explain why he was late to school (45). I know that if I was ever treated this way and told to keep quiet, I would have immediately told the whole world.
If I felt that there was no legitimate reason to investigate me in the first place, I also would have felt that I would never have received a fair investigation unless the prosecutors knew they were being watched. Having no trust in the process, I would feel compelled to go to the press out of self-defense. Telling me to keep quiet would only confirm to me that there was something to hide and convince me I was in danger. The surest way to get me to talk is to tell me not to.
Additionally, people need to be able to vent. If people aren’t even allowed to talk to their therapist, priest, or spouse, all that hurt might bubble up physically. If it doesn’t result in an attack on the police, it might manifest itself as an overreaction to the ubiquitous slights of life and they might attack their boss or a customer. The government is playing with fire here.
Then there was the family in Oregon that made wedding cakes. When they refused to participate in what they viewed as immoral practices by including a written message on the cake pertaining to a homosexual “wedding,” the state decided that this was “discrimination” against a class of people. They were fined a ridiculously high amount and lost their business. Worse, they were told that they could not post any public message that could be construed that they would discriminate again, nor could they discuss the details of the case (46). It amounted to a violation of their free speech and freedom of religion.
Finally, there was the Pelletier family – citizens of Connecticut passing through Massachusetts. When they needed to take their daughter to a hospital, the doctor on duty disagreed with the family doctor as to the cause of her chronic condition. It was one of those many areas of science not yet settled definitively one way or the other. In this case, the doctor in Massachusetts convinced the state that the girl was being treated for something she didn’t have and that this constituted abuse. Instead of contacting family services in Connecticut, the state of Massachusetts kidnapped the daughter, stopped her treatment, and told the family not to tell anybody what had happened (47). The only way I found out about the whole story was because the father went to the news media anyways, eventually winning her release so she could restart her treatment.
I don’t know what is more disturbing, that the state did something so egregious, or that they reversed themselves so quickly just because of some bad press. Justice should not depend on public opinion. If the girl was really being abused, they should never have let her go.
While I am glad that the father went to the press, I am also disappointed he took so long. What kind of father waits around for weeks as his daughter gets sicker and sicker? If the police refused to help him, what he should have done was immediately kidnap his daughter back from these criminals and killed anyone who tried to stop him. Absolutely nobody could have reasonably blamed him. In fact, many might have joined him. Future generations might have erected statues in his honor. Again, the government was playing with fire.
Why didn’t the state of Connecticut protect its own citizens? They could have lined up troops on the border, closing off every highway until she was released. If Massachusetts refused, they could have invaded. Massachusetts was asking for it.
Chipping Away:
Freedom of speech is under attack in small ways as well. These efforts chip away at the edges bit by bit. At first, they might be justifiable, but they create a slippery slope for the enemies of truth to use to bring us into tyranny gradually.
Campaign finance reform was meant to level the playing field between the rich and poor in access to the rule-making engines of the country. When lobbyists representing corporations, unions, PACs, or other special interests have access to legislators and administration officials that the average citizen does not, treating them to lavish vacations and promising campaign contributions for cooperation, it amounts to a form of legalized bribery. Something should be done.
However, if the state were to take over campaign funding by using taxpayer money, it would lead to even worse problems. Would the state have to ensure equal funds to everyone who signed up to run? If it is free, what is to stop millions from signing up? How could the taxpayers ever afford it? How could a voter ever keep track of so many candidates? If we are to be selective in whom we support, what should the minimum requirements be? Would taxpayers be okay with sending their money to support Nazis and Communists too? If not, would voters be okay with the state deciding which parties should never be heard? Could the party in power even use the process to suppress dissenting candidates, ensuring its own reelection forever, creating an oligarchy with only the appearance of a democracy? What type of communication counts as campaigning? Is free press coverage due to a newsworthy story part of the campaign? If I say something nice about you during your campaign and it is later revealed that you once bought a book from me, is that campaign spending? Politicians have already been in trouble for similar things. Various compromise proposals have been offered to fight corruption while preserving speech, including the limited version we now use, but none of them are perfect. Campaign finance laws are a big can of worms that are probably not worth it.
Hate speech laws are another example. In the United States, we are protected by the first amendment, but this might not always be so in the future, given how many people want to repeal it. The enemies of truth are tireless. They have already made headway elsewhere: In Canada, it is illegal to deny the holocaust (48). I heard on Sky News that in Australia, they banned a book that mentioned a far-right viewpoint – even though it was only mentioned so that it could be refuted. In Britain, singing along to Kung Fu Fighting in a karaoke bar can get you investigated by the police for being racially insensitive (49). Our cold war allies who fought for freedom against the Soviet Union have now become the very thing they swore to destroy.
Unfortunately, many states do have hate crime laws. While hate speech alone is still legal, hate speech in conjunction with a regular crime (such as vandalism) can earn a much heavier sentence for that crime. Sometimes these sentences are absurdly harsh. One of the problems with these laws is the ambiguity of what comprises hate speech. In today’s political climate, disagreeing with someone is often called hate speech. Another problem is the potential for selective prosecution. A man in one state gets prison time for burning a LGBT flag (50) while a man in another state has the charges dropped when he is caught lying to police about being attacked by men in MAGA hats (51).
Then there was the recent proposal to force news outlets to do follow up on cases where someone was exonerated. I agree that too often, the media reports on unfounded accusations, but fails to ever report when the accused are acquitted. It can ruin their reputation. The problem with making this the law is that it puts an extra burden on struggling independent journalists who can’t post on a regular basis or keep track of everything said. It creates a chilling effect, causing certain issues not to be discussed.
Colleges are the worst. Many colleges are subsidized by the government and so are not truly private entities. They are bound to honor the bill of rights, but they do not. Furthermore, colleges are institutions of learning, and it is impossible to learn if others are prohibited from teaching. However, many colleges today have created hostile living conditions that nobody should ever have to endure. They make learning impossible. We have to walk on eggshells and carefully watch our words so we are not accused of making a “microaggression” while on a campus. It is so bad that at one college if you ask someone if they are lost, they could take it that you are implying that someone of their ethnicity does not belong in college (52). What if someone is really lost? Have we made being friendly a crime?
Add to this that if you are accused of rape, you will have no right to defend yourself, but will be automatically removed from college and blacklisted on mere hearsay. (53)
Add to this that students are free to label themselves as any gender they like, bullying others by invading spaces reserved for one gender only, but if someone else refers to them by a pronoun they don’t like, it is those referring to them that are called the bullies.
Add to this that some speakers can speak on campus all they like, but other speakers will have their events shut down by rioters egged on by the staff of the colleges.
Add to this that one cannot even discuss intellectual issues of great importance, such as immigration policy or sexual identity, without somebody claiming that merely being exposed to a different opinion is an attack on them justifying physical violence in return.
When it is all added up, it becomes clear that at some colleges the bullies are those in the administration. Campuses are dangerous places, yet Americans keep sending them money and children.
These days students are even given “safe spaces” where they will not have to hear certain opinions. (54) These aren’t toddlers – these are legal adults who can vote, join the military, drive vehicles, and own firearms! They are old enough to have children themselves! This can sometimes be funny, but at the same time this is seriously scary. Imagine needing a “safe space” at 22! This is very disturbing. I’ve been getting into arguments with those of different opinions since I was old enough to talk!
It has even been suggested by some that the colleges are doing this on purpose to create a world of weak people that can be easily manipulated. It has long been believed that the way people get over fear is by exposure, but the colleges do the opposite, actually building up fear and stoking the flames of paranoia.
Not just Government:
Then there are the attacks that happen outside the realm of government. In these cases, the individuals are doing nothing illegal and cannot be legally stopped. If they choose to protest someone that I like, they are merely acting on their own right to free speech. Also, if people don’t like my books, I can’t force them to buy. However, there is a broader point to be made here: We are all intellectually richer the more points of view we are exposed to, and intellectually poorer when speech is stifled. This is something we need to fight for.
“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.” – John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
Allowing a particular idea to be heard is no guarantee that it will convince anybody, so it is hardly justified to suppress bad ideas. In fact, my political leanings are based almost totally on rejections of the conclusions of the other side; I discover the truth by first eliminating error. I want my enemies to speak so everyone can see how stupid they are! Why not grant me the same chance? Let me tell everyone how stupid I am! Allowing me to speak and then exposing my foolishness will do a world of good better for me (and any followers I might have) than shutting me up. If I keep quiet, not only will I never learn, but I will wonder whether my enemies’ positions are so weak that they cannot stand scrutiny. The end result is to make me even more sure of my positions, not less.
There is also a danger when a few large companies are able to control almost everything. They can effectively become a government unto themselves. We see hints of this already. I’ve never seen any evidence of it, but Google is often accused of suppressing search results for right-wing media (55). Are they really right-wing media? Why not let me discover them and decide for myself? Let them make fools of themselves! Let free speech work!
What is really scary is that without a search engine, I can’t do research. I can’t find sources to back up what I know I heard on the news. Even if I remember where I heard it and about when, it can be impossible to sort through all that footage. Everything in this book I encountered somewhere, but in many cases you’ll have to take my word for it. Sometimes in searching for one story, I find a story claiming to debunk the first, proving the first must have existed, though I can no longer find the original.
Finally, when even a president of the most powerful country in the world can be banned from social media platforms on false pretenses (or for any reason, really), you know that tech companies are too powerful and free speech is in danger.
Preventing Oversight:
Politicians have weaponized government to silence their opponents. The press is under attack. Reporters are doxed (41). Bloggers wake up in the middle of the night to firecrackers hitting their walls (42). The FBI raids the homes of journalists and then hands over key secrets to their opposition in ongoing civil litigation (43). When undercover journalist David Daleiden, posing as a buyer, was able to acquire evidence that an abortion clinic was selling fetal parts in violation of the law, then handing that evidence over to the police, he was promptly charged with attempting to buy fetal parts (44). If he had really intended to go through with the purchase, why would he turn himself in? How are undercover journalists supposed to find the truth if not by posing as buyers?
Judicial gag orders are another example of weaponization. There have been several cases in the news of American citizens being terrorized by an out-of-control government and the victims were not even allowed the recourse of going to the media to exert political pressure on their behalf. When the voters don’t even know what evils their officers and judges are up to, how can they make an informed vote?
A few years ago, there were a series of raids on the homes of campaign consultants. Apparently, there are rules about what consultants can say to each other, which means that in theory police are authorized to investigate to find out if the rules are being followed. They broke into houses in the early morning and told the consultants and their families they could not even tell anyone that they were being investigated. One kid was not even allowed to explain why he was late to school (45). I know that if I was ever treated this way and told to keep quiet, I would have immediately told the whole world.
If I felt that there was no legitimate reason to investigate me in the first place, I also would have felt that I would never have received a fair investigation unless the prosecutors knew they were being watched. Having no trust in the process, I would feel compelled to go to the press out of self-defense. Telling me to keep quiet would only confirm to me that there was something to hide and convince me I was in danger. The surest way to get me to talk is to tell me not to.
Additionally, people need to be able to vent. If people aren’t even allowed to talk to their therapist, priest, or spouse, all that hurt might bubble up physically. If it doesn’t result in an attack on the police, it might manifest itself as an overreaction to the ubiquitous slights of life and they might attack their boss or a customer. The government is playing with fire here.
Then there was the family in Oregon that made wedding cakes. When they refused to participate in what they viewed as immoral practices by including a written message on the cake pertaining to a homosexual “wedding,” the state decided that this was “discrimination” against a class of people. They were fined a ridiculously high amount and lost their business. Worse, they were told that they could not post any public message that could be construed that they would discriminate again, nor could they discuss the details of the case (46). It amounted to a violation of their free speech and freedom of religion.
Finally, there was the Pelletier family – citizens of Connecticut passing through Massachusetts. When they needed to take their daughter to a hospital, the doctor on duty disagreed with the family doctor as to the cause of her chronic condition. It was one of those many areas of science not yet settled definitively one way or the other. In this case, the doctor in Massachusetts convinced the state that the girl was being treated for something she didn’t have and that this constituted abuse. Instead of contacting family services in Connecticut, the state of Massachusetts kidnapped the daughter, stopped her treatment, and told the family not to tell anybody what had happened (47). The only way I found out about the whole story was because the father went to the news media anyways, eventually winning her release so she could restart her treatment.
I don’t know what is more disturbing, that the state did something so egregious, or that they reversed themselves so quickly just because of some bad press. Justice should not depend on public opinion. If the girl was really being abused, they should never have let her go.
While I am glad that the father went to the press, I am also disappointed he took so long. What kind of father waits around for weeks as his daughter gets sicker and sicker? If the police refused to help him, what he should have done was immediately kidnap his daughter back from these criminals and killed anyone who tried to stop him. Absolutely nobody could have reasonably blamed him. In fact, many might have joined him. Future generations might have erected statues in his honor. Again, the government was playing with fire.
Why didn’t the state of Connecticut protect its own citizens? They could have lined up troops on the border, closing off every highway until she was released. If Massachusetts refused, they could have invaded. Massachusetts was asking for it.
Chipping Away:
Freedom of speech is under attack in small ways as well. These efforts chip away at the edges bit by bit. At first, they might be justifiable, but they create a slippery slope for the enemies of truth to use to bring us into tyranny gradually.
Campaign finance reform was meant to level the playing field between the rich and poor in access to the rule-making engines of the country. When lobbyists representing corporations, unions, PACs, or other special interests have access to legislators and administration officials that the average citizen does not, treating them to lavish vacations and promising campaign contributions for cooperation, it amounts to a form of legalized bribery. Something should be done.
However, if the state were to take over campaign funding by using taxpayer money, it would lead to even worse problems. Would the state have to ensure equal funds to everyone who signed up to run? If it is free, what is to stop millions from signing up? How could the taxpayers ever afford it? How could a voter ever keep track of so many candidates? If we are to be selective in whom we support, what should the minimum requirements be? Would taxpayers be okay with sending their money to support Nazis and Communists too? If not, would voters be okay with the state deciding which parties should never be heard? Could the party in power even use the process to suppress dissenting candidates, ensuring its own reelection forever, creating an oligarchy with only the appearance of a democracy? What type of communication counts as campaigning? Is free press coverage due to a newsworthy story part of the campaign? If I say something nice about you during your campaign and it is later revealed that you once bought a book from me, is that campaign spending? Politicians have already been in trouble for similar things. Various compromise proposals have been offered to fight corruption while preserving speech, including the limited version we now use, but none of them are perfect. Campaign finance laws are a big can of worms that are probably not worth it.
Hate speech laws are another example. In the United States, we are protected by the first amendment, but this might not always be so in the future, given how many people want to repeal it. The enemies of truth are tireless. They have already made headway elsewhere: In Canada, it is illegal to deny the holocaust (48). I heard on Sky News that in Australia, they banned a book that mentioned a far-right viewpoint – even though it was only mentioned so that it could be refuted. In Britain, singing along to Kung Fu Fighting in a karaoke bar can get you investigated by the police for being racially insensitive (49). Our cold war allies who fought for freedom against the Soviet Union have now become the very thing they swore to destroy.
Unfortunately, many states do have hate crime laws. While hate speech alone is still legal, hate speech in conjunction with a regular crime (such as vandalism) can earn a much heavier sentence for that crime. Sometimes these sentences are absurdly harsh. One of the problems with these laws is the ambiguity of what comprises hate speech. In today’s political climate, disagreeing with someone is often called hate speech. Another problem is the potential for selective prosecution. A man in one state gets prison time for burning a LGBT flag (50) while a man in another state has the charges dropped when he is caught lying to police about being attacked by men in MAGA hats (51).
Then there was the recent proposal to force news outlets to do follow up on cases where someone was exonerated. I agree that too often, the media reports on unfounded accusations, but fails to ever report when the accused are acquitted. It can ruin their reputation. The problem with making this the law is that it puts an extra burden on struggling independent journalists who can’t post on a regular basis or keep track of everything said. It creates a chilling effect, causing certain issues not to be discussed.
Colleges are the worst. Many colleges are subsidized by the government and so are not truly private entities. They are bound to honor the bill of rights, but they do not. Furthermore, colleges are institutions of learning, and it is impossible to learn if others are prohibited from teaching. However, many colleges today have created hostile living conditions that nobody should ever have to endure. They make learning impossible. We have to walk on eggshells and carefully watch our words so we are not accused of making a “microaggression” while on a campus. It is so bad that at one college if you ask someone if they are lost, they could take it that you are implying that someone of their ethnicity does not belong in college (52). What if someone is really lost? Have we made being friendly a crime?
Add to this that if you are accused of rape, you will have no right to defend yourself, but will be automatically removed from college and blacklisted on mere hearsay. (53)
Add to this that students are free to label themselves as any gender they like, bullying others by invading spaces reserved for one gender only, but if someone else refers to them by a pronoun they don’t like, it is those referring to them that are called the bullies.
Add to this that some speakers can speak on campus all they like, but other speakers will have their events shut down by rioters egged on by the staff of the colleges.
Add to this that one cannot even discuss intellectual issues of great importance, such as immigration policy or sexual identity, without somebody claiming that merely being exposed to a different opinion is an attack on them justifying physical violence in return.
When it is all added up, it becomes clear that at some colleges the bullies are those in the administration. Campuses are dangerous places, yet Americans keep sending them money and children.
These days students are even given “safe spaces” where they will not have to hear certain opinions. (54) These aren’t toddlers – these are legal adults who can vote, join the military, drive vehicles, and own firearms! They are old enough to have children themselves! This can sometimes be funny, but at the same time this is seriously scary. Imagine needing a “safe space” at 22! This is very disturbing. I’ve been getting into arguments with those of different opinions since I was old enough to talk!
It has even been suggested by some that the colleges are doing this on purpose to create a world of weak people that can be easily manipulated. It has long been believed that the way people get over fear is by exposure, but the colleges do the opposite, actually building up fear and stoking the flames of paranoia.
Not just Government:
Then there are the attacks that happen outside the realm of government. In these cases, the individuals are doing nothing illegal and cannot be legally stopped. If they choose to protest someone that I like, they are merely acting on their own right to free speech. Also, if people don’t like my books, I can’t force them to buy. However, there is a broader point to be made here: We are all intellectually richer the more points of view we are exposed to, and intellectually poorer when speech is stifled. This is something we need to fight for.
“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.” – John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
Allowing a particular idea to be heard is no guarantee that it will convince anybody, so it is hardly justified to suppress bad ideas. In fact, my political leanings are based almost totally on rejections of the conclusions of the other side; I discover the truth by first eliminating error. I want my enemies to speak so everyone can see how stupid they are! Why not grant me the same chance? Let me tell everyone how stupid I am! Allowing me to speak and then exposing my foolishness will do a world of good better for me (and any followers I might have) than shutting me up. If I keep quiet, not only will I never learn, but I will wonder whether my enemies’ positions are so weak that they cannot stand scrutiny. The end result is to make me even more sure of my positions, not less.
There is also a danger when a few large companies are able to control almost everything. They can effectively become a government unto themselves. We see hints of this already. I’ve never seen any evidence of it, but Google is often accused of suppressing search results for right-wing media (55). Are they really right-wing media? Why not let me discover them and decide for myself? Let them make fools of themselves! Let free speech work!
What is really scary is that without a search engine, I can’t do research. I can’t find sources to back up what I know I heard on the news. Even if I remember where I heard it and about when, it can be impossible to sort through all that footage. Everything in this book I encountered somewhere, but in many cases you’ll have to take my word for it. Sometimes in searching for one story, I find a story claiming to debunk the first, proving the first must have existed, though I can no longer find the original.
Finally, when even a president of the most powerful country in the world can be banned from social media platforms on false pretenses (or for any reason, really), you know that tech companies are too powerful and free speech is in danger.