What if it was illegal to express your chosen values by engaging in a boycott? After all, a boycott is a form of discrimination. Shouldn’t people be forced to enter into relationships against their will in contradiction to their values? After all, that’s the argument of those opposed to Indiana’s religious freedom law.
Expressing his insights in a recent op-ed for the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Hennepin County Sheriff Rich Stanek lays out a comprehensive critique of our “one-size-fits-all criminal justice system” that treats people with mental illness and chemical dependency as if they were violent criminals. Elsewhere, in a piece for USA Today, author points out that we now have so many laws on the books that “you are probably breaking the law right now.”
We need comprehensive criminal justice reform at every level of government rooted in the principle of individual rights – tough on criminals who leave victims in their wake, and not saddled with larger societal problems that require treatment instead of punishment.
Public policy debates frequently place the proverbial cart before the horse by prioritizing the convenience or “need” of a favored constituency (or “society” as a whole) ahead of the rights of individuals. But the only thing which human beings truly need from each other is the freedom to pursue chosen values. That may inconvenience those who would prefer to trespass and steal to get what they want. But such inconvenience is not an argument against liberty.
Republican leadership in the Minnesota House appear to be blocking progress on a bill boasting broad bipartisan support which would restore voting rights to parolees living in the community. A chance to freshen up the party’s brand and demonstrate the value of Republican principles to non-traditional constituencies is being squandered.
Arguing against voting rights seems like a losing proposition. But that hasn’t stopped some activists from doing so after a bipartisan rally last week to restore the franchise to felons on parole. What’s been said, and why its wrong.
Becoming the first major candidate to officially enter the 2016 presidential race, Senator Ted Cruz got off to a rocky start Monday when his campaign message was eclipsed by controversy over his chosen venue. Reason blogger Robby Soave slammed both Cruz and Liberty University for piggybacking his announcement on top of a mandatory convocation assembly.
Calling people racist has become the tactic of first resort for activists from the radical left. Believe in property rights? You’re a racist. Think you should be able to keep your money? You’re a racist. Want to choose where your kid goes to school? You’re a racist.
Despite such misuse of the term, there is a fairly straight forward way to determine whether a thought, phrase, or action is truly racist. It’s a test which reveals racism everywhere you look, but not from the sources most commonly accused.
An interview on Up and At ‘Em on AM 1130, including representatives from Black Lives Matter Minneapolis and an education advocacy non-profit known as Better Ed, contained some of the most overtly racist rhetoric to be found in modern discourse. Appeals to equality and justice were cloaked in naked judgment of whites based solely on the color of their skin.
Apparently working under the Pelosi model of voting on bills so she can find out what is in them, Senator Amy Klobuchar now claims an aide failed to disclose language in an anti-human trafficking bill which denied federal funds for abortion. When’s the last time you got by on the excuse that you didn’t know something because someone else didn’t read it to you?
The single greatest cultural barrier to the preservation and advancement of liberty is our reverence for sacrifice. We use the word in reference to things which are actually good for us. But its true meaning is exhibited by an author at Slate who thinks you should give up what’s best for your kids for the sake of an “eventual common good.”