Authored by James Bovard via The Mises Institute,
The official theme song of the Kamala Harris presidential campaign is “Freedom” by Beyonce. But a more accurate theme would be the Rolling Stones classic, Under my Thumb.
Vice President Harris is seeking the presidency as the greatest champion of freedom in modern times.
But Kamala-style freedom will only unleash the government, not private citizens.
The original Bill of Rights created a row of bulwarks for citizens to prevent government oppression. In the era of the American Revolution, it was a common saying: “The Restraint of Government is the True Liberty and Freedom of the People.” But Harris and her running mate, Governor Tim Walz, are offering a “freedom,” seemingly inspired by Yugoslavian communist dictator Tito: “The more powerful the State, the more freedom.”
Harris begins by tacitly presuming that politicians must forcibly save humanity. Harris seeks to vastly expand government intervention to supposedly give people true freedom in daily life. Harris’s “freedom” presumes government is irrevocably benevolent—unless you are a bad person who deserves punishment or subjugation or overtaxing. But the definition of “bad” can be endlessly expanded to include anyone who howls about being fleeced, locked down, or muzzled.
Harris-Walz Freedom requires maximum government interference in daily life. Harris called for a merciless crackdown on misinformation, including punishing social media companies that fail to kowtow to Washington. Walz is emphatic that there is no freedom of speech for “misinformation”—a vague notion which can include any statement disapproved by officialdom. When did America’s most distrusted occupation—politicians—become entitled to define truth and to forcibly suppress and punish what they label “misinformation”?
Under the Harris-Walz standard, Americans will only have the freedom to say anything that the government approves. Walz endorsed a 1919 Supreme Court case that upheld imprisoning anyone who criticized military conscription during World War One. The Biden administration was condemned by federal judges for suppressing millions of comments and jokes by Americans about Covid mandates and shutdowns. But according to liberals, that wasn’t censorship because only reactionaries or deplorables complained about pandemic policies. Plus, Fauci is still a saint.
Mindy Kaling, an actress and emcee for the third night of the Democratic National Convention, invoked “the freedom to work one job and afford your rent.” The Biden administration floated proposals for nationwide rent control and Harris is championing proposals to stop “price gouging.” To achieve true freedom, bureaucrats would commandeer veto power over any contract dealing with housing or food. And when federal price controls caused devastating shortages, that would simply prove that politicians need even more power over daily life.
At the Democratic National Convention, a Harris campaign video pledged that she would deliver “freedom from extremism.” But that would provide a blank check to suppress any ideas of which politicians disapprove. Newsweek reported last year that the FBI created “a new category of extremists that it seeks to track and counter: Donald Trump’s army of MAGA followers.” To permit politicians to define extremism is to let them preemptively vilify their most dangerous critics. Two years ago, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre asserted, “When you are not with what majority of Americans are, then you know, that is extreme. That is an extreme way of thinking.” This is a definition of extremism that could put the federal crosshairs on most people who visit this website.
“Freedom from fear” is another Harris-Walz promise. Pledging “freedom from fear” entitles politicians to seize power over anything that frightens anyone. People who sound the alarm about excessive government power will be guilty of subverting freedom from fear. Giving politicians more power based on people’s fears is like giving firemen pay raises based on how many false alarms are reported.
Harris promises the “freedom to be safe from gun violence.” Harris previously supported banning private ownership of pistols, warrantless searches of people’s homes to inspect their firearms, and confiscating the most popular rifle in America. Freedom from fear of guns will justify politicians confiscating any firearm that frightens any liberal in the land. Disarming Americans will leave them in total dependency on the same politicians who lied to confiscate their guns in the first place.
Walz declared that he and Kamala were devoted to safeguarding “the freedom for children to go to school without worrying if they’ll be shot in the halls.” But what about children’s freedom not to be forcibly injected with experimental vaccines? Liberal Democratic governors in California and New York pushed hard to make Covid vaccines mandatory for school kids. California is also safeguarding the “freedom” to mastermind using drugs or other interventions to assist kids to change their gender while keeping the treatment secret from parents.
Harris champions “the fundamental freedom of a woman to be able to make decisions about her own body.” But vast numbers of nurses were fired for refusing to get the Covid vaccine that Biden mandated for all health care workers. Biden sought to compel tens of millions to get those injections despite their dismal failure to prevent Covid infections or transmission. The Supreme Court blocked Biden’s mandate for private employees but perversely allowed it for health care workers (even though many of them had natural immunity after recovering from Covid infections). That court decision did not prevent liberal governors and mayors from imposing vaccine passport restrictions that effectively sought to banish the unvaccinated from society.
All that matters is that the latest Covid booster is government-approved—so forcing people to get injected is no violation of individual freedom, which includes freedom to obey your superiors. The same standard could justify imposing endless vaccine mandates for future plagues that escape from federally-funded labs.
Harris pledges to give Americans “the freedom to breathe clean air, and drink clean water and live free from the pollution that fuels the climate crisis.” Since the 1970s, federal legislation has sharply curbed pollution of air and water. And how would Harris define this new “freedom”? Parts per billion or parts per trillion of contaminants? To achieve Harris’s vague standards, federal regulators would be entitled to ban gasoline-powered cars and gas stoves. Harris would also entitle bureaucrats to inflict endless restrictions on development to satisfy the latest green fetish.
Harris-Walz freedom is a circus shell game in which constitutional restraints vanish and politicians always win. Once politicians invoke the new freedoms to stretch their power, it will not matter whether they deliver the bounties they promise. Citizens will be left muzzled and disarmed and at the mercy of officialdom.
The campaign video pledged that Harris would give Americans “freedom from control.” A more honest Harris-Walz campaign slogan would be: “For your own good.” Or maybe promise Americans the “freedom to be what the government approves”? Perhaps the Harris-Walz art team could create an icon portraying an iron fist as the new, improved symbol of freedom. Adding a smiley face atop the fist would harmonize with the Harris “joy” and “positive vibes” campaign theme.
Redefining boundless arbitrary power as freedom is the death knell for government under the law. The Harris-Walz delusions on freedom stem in part from the Democratic Party’s perverse notion of the proper role of government. The perverse redefinition of freedom parallels the attempt to portray politicians as literal saviors. At the Democratic National Convention, New Mexico Gov. Michelle Grisham hailed Harris: “We need a president who can be Consoler-in-Chief. We need a president capable of holding us in a great big hug.”
Not me. I have enough shams in my life without some politician pretending to be my friend.
Instead of vesting blind trust in Harris and Walz, Americans should heed Thomas Jefferson’s 1798 warning: “In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” Those constitutional chains will come in damn handy no matter who wins the election next month.
Is there as much confusion in America on the meaning of freedom as there is on the benefits of tariffs? For almost half a century, prevailing opinion in this nation recognized the folly of permitting politicians to recklessly blockade our own ports with heavy taxes on imports. But both parties are now portraying tariffs as economic magic wands.
Similarly, Americans for generations had an instinctive recognition of the danger of unleashing politicians and letting government officials wantonly intrude into their lives. The Supreme Court declared in 1934, “A general, roving... investigation, conducted by a commission without any allegations... is unknown to our Constitution and laws; and such an inquisition would be destructive of the rights of the citizen, and an intolerable tyranny.” But this is practically the recipe for Harris-Walz freedom as well as some of Donald Trump’s interventionist schemes. Regardless of the election outcome, Americans must beware of Trojan horse definitions of freedom that allow bureaucrats to clamor out and take over everyone’s lives.
Authored by James Bovard via The Mises Institute,
The official theme song of the Kamala Harris presidential campaign is “Freedom” by Beyonce. But a more accurate theme would be the Rolling Stones classic, Under my Thumb.
Vice President Harris is seeking the presidency as the greatest champion of freedom in modern times.
But Kamala-style freedom will only unleash the government, not private citizens.
The original Bill of Rights created a row of bulwarks for citizens to prevent government oppression. In the era of the American Revolution, it was a common saying: “The Restraint of Government is the True Liberty and Freedom of the People.” But Harris and her running mate, Governor Tim Walz, are offering a “freedom,” seemingly inspired by Yugoslavian communist dictator Tito: “The more powerful the State, the more freedom.”
Harris begins by tacitly presuming that politicians must forcibly save humanity. Harris seeks to vastly expand government intervention to supposedly give people true freedom in daily life. Harris’s “freedom” presumes government is irrevocably benevolent—unless you are a bad person who deserves punishment or subjugation or overtaxing. But the definition of “bad” can be endlessly expanded to include anyone who howls about being fleeced, locked down, or muzzled.
Harris-Walz Freedom requires maximum government interference in daily life. Harris called for a merciless crackdown on misinformation, including punishing social media companies that fail to kowtow to Washington. Walz is emphatic that there is no freedom of speech for “misinformation”—a vague notion which can include any statement disapproved by officialdom. When did America’s most distrusted occupation—politicians—become entitled to define truth and to forcibly suppress and punish what they label “misinformation”?
Under the Harris-Walz standard, Americans will only have the freedom to say anything that the government approves. Walz endorsed a 1919 Supreme Court case that upheld imprisoning anyone who criticized military conscription during World War One. The Biden administration was condemned by federal judges for suppressing millions of comments and jokes by Americans about Covid mandates and shutdowns. But according to liberals, that wasn’t censorship because only reactionaries or deplorables complained about pandemic policies. Plus, Fauci is still a saint.
Mindy Kaling, an actress and emcee for the third night of the Democratic National Convention, invoked “the freedom to work one job and afford your rent.” The Biden administration floated proposals for nationwide rent control and Harris is championing proposals to stop “price gouging.” To achieve true freedom, bureaucrats would commandeer veto power over any contract dealing with housing or food. And when federal price controls caused devastating shortages, that would simply prove that politicians need even more power over daily life.
At the Democratic National Convention, a Harris campaign video pledged that she would deliver “freedom from extremism.” But that would provide a blank check to suppress any ideas of which politicians disapprove. Newsweek reported last year that the FBI created “a new category of extremists that it seeks to track and counter: Donald Trump’s army of MAGA followers.” To permit politicians to define extremism is to let them preemptively vilify their most dangerous critics. Two years ago, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre asserted, “When you are not with what majority of Americans are, then you know, that is extreme. That is an extreme way of thinking.” This is a definition of extremism that could put the federal crosshairs on most people who visit this website.
“Freedom from fear” is another Harris-Walz promise. Pledging “freedom from fear” entitles politicians to seize power over anything that frightens anyone. People who sound the alarm about excessive government power will be guilty of subverting freedom from fear. Giving politicians more power based on people’s fears is like giving firemen pay raises based on how many false alarms are reported.
Harris promises the “freedom to be safe from gun violence.” Harris previously supported banning private ownership of pistols, warrantless searches of people’s homes to inspect their firearms, and confiscating the most popular rifle in America. Freedom from fear of guns will justify politicians confiscating any firearm that frightens any liberal in the land. Disarming Americans will leave them in total dependency on the same politicians who lied to confiscate their guns in the first place.
Walz declared that he and Kamala were devoted to safeguarding “the freedom for children to go to school without worrying if they’ll be shot in the halls.” But what about children’s freedom not to be forcibly injected with experimental vaccines? Liberal Democratic governors in California and New York pushed hard to make Covid vaccines mandatory for school kids. California is also safeguarding the “freedom” to mastermind using drugs or other interventions to assist kids to change their gender while keeping the treatment secret from parents.
Harris champions “the fundamental freedom of a woman to be able to make decisions about her own body.” But vast numbers of nurses were fired for refusing to get the Covid vaccine that Biden mandated for all health care workers. Biden sought to compel tens of millions to get those injections despite their dismal failure to prevent Covid infections or transmission. The Supreme Court blocked Biden’s mandate for private employees but perversely allowed it for health care workers (even though many of them had natural immunity after recovering from Covid infections). That court decision did not prevent liberal governors and mayors from imposing vaccine passport restrictions that effectively sought to banish the unvaccinated from society.
All that matters is that the latest Covid booster is government-approved—so forcing people to get injected is no violation of individual freedom, which includes freedom to obey your superiors. The same standard could justify imposing endless vaccine mandates for future plagues that escape from federally-funded labs.
Harris pledges to give Americans “the freedom to breathe clean air, and drink clean water and live free from the pollution that fuels the climate crisis.” Since the 1970s, federal legislation has sharply curbed pollution of air and water. And how would Harris define this new “freedom”? Parts per billion or parts per trillion of contaminants? To achieve Harris’s vague standards, federal regulators would be entitled to ban gasoline-powered cars and gas stoves. Harris would also entitle bureaucrats to inflict endless restrictions on development to satisfy the latest green fetish.
Harris-Walz freedom is a circus shell game in which constitutional restraints vanish and politicians always win. Once politicians invoke the new freedoms to stretch their power, it will not matter whether they deliver the bounties they promise. Citizens will be left muzzled and disarmed and at the mercy of officialdom.
The campaign video pledged that Harris would give Americans “freedom from control.” A more honest Harris-Walz campaign slogan would be: “For your own good.” Or maybe promise Americans the “freedom to be what the government approves”? Perhaps the Harris-Walz art team could create an icon portraying an iron fist as the new, improved symbol of freedom. Adding a smiley face atop the fist would harmonize with the Harris “joy” and “positive vibes” campaign theme.
Redefining boundless arbitrary power as freedom is the death knell for government under the law. The Harris-Walz delusions on freedom stem in part from the Democratic Party’s perverse notion of the proper role of government. The perverse redefinition of freedom parallels the attempt to portray politicians as literal saviors. At the Democratic National Convention, New Mexico Gov. Michelle Grisham hailed Harris: “We need a president who can be Consoler-in-Chief. We need a president capable of holding us in a great big hug.”
Not me. I have enough shams in my life without some politician pretending to be my friend.
Instead of vesting blind trust in Harris and Walz, Americans should heed Thomas Jefferson’s 1798 warning: “In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” Those constitutional chains will come in damn handy no matter who wins the election next month.
Is there as much confusion in America on the meaning of freedom as there is on the benefits of tariffs? For almost half a century, prevailing opinion in this nation recognized the folly of permitting politicians to recklessly blockade our own ports with heavy taxes on imports. But both parties are now portraying tariffs as economic magic wands.
Similarly, Americans for generations had an instinctive recognition of the danger of unleashing politicians and letting government officials wantonly intrude into their lives. The Supreme Court declared in 1934, “A general, roving… investigation, conducted by a commission without any allegations… is unknown to our Constitution and laws; and such an inquisition would be destructive of the rights of the citizen, and an intolerable tyranny.” But this is practically the recipe for Harris-Walz freedom as well as some of Donald Trump’s interventionist schemes. Regardless of the election outcome, Americans must beware of Trojan horse definitions of freedom that allow bureaucrats to clamor out and take over everyone’s lives.
Loading…
