What America Would Look Like If Libertarians Got Their Way
What if you cut all benefits? What if all of public life were a giant competition? What libertarianism would look like in real life.
By RJ Eskow / AlterNet December 25, 2013
These four libertarian/conservative dystopias are offered, as Rod Serling used to say in "The Twilight Zone," "for your consideration."
The “Libertarian/Conservative”
I’ve qualified my previous writings on libertarianism with disclaimers explaining that I’m addressing a specific, popular subset of libertarian thought. But I’ve still run afoul of dozens of people who say, “I’m a libertarian and I don’t think those things.” I’ve still received comments like those from David Brin .. http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2013/09/bringing-back-feudalism-is.html , who correctly notes that I’m not addressing libertarians like Friedrich Hayek in my criticism.
True. But Hayek ain’t in the saddle these days. Ayn Rand is leading the posse, to the extent any intellectual figure is. But I'll put my disclaimer upfront this time: I acknowledge that, as libertarian-friendly writer John Danaher .. http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/danaher20131218 .. puts it, “’libertarianism’ has come to denote a broad, often fractious, group of political theories.”
I suppose it’s only fitting that a philosophy celebrating competing markets would, to a certain extent, be a set of competing markets itself.
But it seems even clearer that a “libertarian” in today’s political environment is almost always someone who ascribes to certain core philosophies: He abhors government, hates taxation, and is hostile to collective action on behalf of the less fortunate. Name any prominent modern libertarian—Ayn Rand, Paul Ryan, Ron Paul, Peter Thiel, Rand Paul—and they are likely to fit this description.
These figures represent a singular and increasingly dominant libertarian vision. To avoid future confusion, I'll give their brand of thought an admittedly imperfect name: “libertarian/conservative.” It is that vision, and their future, which I address here—and it's a frightening future.
1. What if you cut all benefits?
You’ve heard it from Sen. Rand Paul and other conservatives this winter: unemployment benefits increase unemployment. It’s an enormously destructive idea, though absurd on its face. It's like the argument that hospitals create sick people; after all, there are so many of them there.
We usually consider such thinking "primitive" in modern societies.
Yet that's exactly what libertarian/conservatives are arguing when they say that unemployment benefits increased or extend unemployment. There is no credible evidence to suggest that this is true. There is overwhelming evidence suggesting that unemployment is caused by other factors, including poor consumer demand and lack of business confidence.
Right now there are nearly three job seekers for every job opening. That means there are no jobs available for two out of the three. They will not “go out and find work” once their unemployment benefits stop. They will simply plunge into deeper economic misery. They will become like accident victims who are denied hospital care because it would “foster an attitude of dependency.”
But, as absurd and unkind as this thinking is, there’s something even more frightening about it: This kind of thinking never ends. If you believe that unemployment benefits cause unemployment, you’ll cut those benefits off. That could throw millions of people onto the welfare rolls. But if you believe that welfare causes dependency, you’ll cut those benefits off, too. That will leave people utterly dependent on programs like heating oil subsidies, food assistance, and even homeless shelters.
But if you believe that those programs create dependency, too....
It never stops: Close down the homeless shelters. Shut down the Salvation Army. Make it illegal to throw a starving person a coin or toss a blanket over them as they lay on the sidewalk. This logic only ends one way: in a hellish dystopia where the underclass is starving, homeless and dying in droves.
If that seems melodramatic, ask a libertarian/conservative this question: When will you know that your theory is wrong?
2. Nothing but competition.
This idea lies at the heart of libertarian and conservative thinking. The argument says that human beings excel when they are competing with one another for dominance. The free market is the best economic system in the world, we’re told, because private enterprises compete with one another for market share.
This is the thinking behind the movement to privatize government services. In fact, it’s the very same thinking which led the conservative American Enterprise Institute to design the set of policies the world now knows as “Obamacare.”
It’s also wrong. We saw that in the ignominious failure of libertarian Eddie Lambert, the Sears CEO who drove his company into the ground with the misguided notion that internal competition among his company’s departments would cause each of them to function more efficiently. That proved to be an enormously frustrating experience for customers, and ignominious failure for the corporation as a whole.
Wrong. It turns out that people who are motivated to act out of self-interest will do whatever it takes to enrich themselves, even if that means damaging the entire society—in this case, the Sears “society”—in the process. Sure, competition “works,” sometimes, for some things. But the Sears experiment showed us that it works best when there is a fabric which knits the competing parts together into something more than the sum of its parts.
We call that something a nation.
Eddie Lambert’s Sears is a nation in microcosm. When its common purpose was lost, the entire enterprise collapsed. Eddie Lambert taught us that that when people act solely out of self-interest, they act destructively toward others, and hurt themselves as well. Everybody loses.
Lambert wanted Sears to teach the nation a lesson, and it did. Selfishness is one of the roads to dystopia.
3. Free-enterprise zones.
The concept of the free-enterprise zone was first popularized by Republican Jack Kemp. Kemp, a football star-turned-House member and vice-presidential candidate (with Bob Dole in 1996), adopted the concept, also known as “urban enterprise zones,” as a campaign theme during his initial rise and a 1988 presidential campaign. It’s based on the belief that economically disadvantaged areas—inner cities or impoverished rural areas—would be revitalized if regulations, minimum wage requirements and tax levels were eased.
This concept is based on two separate but related theories. The first is that employers are likely to be attracted to these struggling areas by the lower cost of doing business there. But a deeper, less frequently articulated theory cuts even closer to theoretical libertarianism: that regulations and taxes are themselves economy-killers. Free-enterprise zones, it was thought, could therefore become laboratory experiments which would demonstrate how much better an economy functions without them.
It didn’t work out that way. A few of the zone’s tools, such as targeted tax breaks, have provided temporary relief in some instances. But overall the experiment has been a singular failure. As one roundup of research on zones put it: “Most of the more sophisticated studies show no increases in employment or per capita income.”
Instead, the one consistent finding across all studies appears to be this: zones typically made money for one or more corporations, but the promised social benefit in jobs and income never materialized.
That hasn’t killed the zone idea, or the many variations on its theme. Statewide initiatives, offered as tax breaks or other incentives, have been equally unsuccessful. The most spectacularly unsuccessful track record in this regard belongs to New Jersey governor Chris Christie, who has offered nearly $2 billion .. http://www.governing.com/topics/finance/gov-new-jersey-tax-incentive-payoff.html .. in tax incentives to spur job growth. The result? Job growth in New Jersey lags behind most of the nation, while hundreds of millions in tax breaks went to giant casinos and to large corporations Prudential, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Verizon, and Panasonic.
The zone idea is truly dystopian in scope, and that’s the idea which refuses to die. The premise is this: The regions inhabited by low-income brown, black, or white citizens should become places where basic worker protections are nullified, and the financial obligations of the wealthy are relaxed even more than they are today.
If this idea is pursued, the zones will become Third World nations within nations in the North American landmass, de facto colonies which have been insourced for corporate convenience. They’ll belch out poisons in their unregulated mines, farms and factories; under-bid one another for jobs and underpay workers while placing them in increasingly unsafe conditions; drain revenue from local, state and federal government; and lower the overall standard of living.
4. The absolute rights of private ownership.
I turn again to Sen. Rand Paul on this issue, because he expresses these ideas clearly and directly (just as he does when I agree with him, on issues of civil liberties and drone warfare), although he has been known to recant somewhat afterwards.
Here’s the dystopian dimension of Sen. Paul’s argument: Governments exist to uphold the law and, at the federal level, to uphold the Constitution. The Civil Rights Law serves both purposes. If “private ownership” is a barrier against these governmental prerogatives, where does it end? If you can’t outlaw discrimination on private property, what can you outlaw: Fraud? Theft? Murder?
In Paul Randian libertarianism there is no limit to the deeds a business owner can commit inside the confines of his own business. Even if laws against theft and murder are upheld, that would almost certainly mean an end to all workplace safety laws, much less minimum wage laws. As with free-enterprise zones, workers (and anyone in the vicinity) could be subject to the dangers of a Bhopal or a Bangladesh clothing factory, and government would be powerless to stop it.
This time the mayhem wouldn’t be limited to some designated places on the map. The entire country would be placed at the legal, economic and environmental mercy of property holders. The nation would be divided into Owners and Others, with the Others given no ability to enforce societal values—even matters of national security—over the Owners.
The counter-argument will often be made that “it can be settled with the free market.” Sen. Paul made that argument himself, when he said he “would not go” to the Woolworth’s which refused to seat African Americans during the civil rights struggle. But people lack alternatives, in an economy increasingly dominated by a few corporations. And they’re unlikely to hear about most of these crimes and injustices, in an era where corporate media are also under “private ownership.”
The unaided needy. Selfishness run riot. A North America dotted with Third World colonies. And a blighted landscape where Others are subjugated to Owners.
RJ Eskow is a senior fellow with the Campaign for America's Future.
If your approach is so great, why hasn’t any country anywhere in the world ever tried it?
Michael Lind
(Credit: AP/Charlie Riedel)
Why are there no libertarian countries? If libertarians are correct in claiming that they understand how best to organize a modern society, how is it that not a single country in the world in the early twenty-first century is organized along libertarian lines?
It’s not as though there were a shortage of countries to experiment with libertarianism. There are 193 sovereign state members of the United Nations—195, if you count the Vatican and Palestine, which have been granted observer status by the world organization. If libertarianism was a good idea, wouldn’t at least one country have tried it? Wouldn’t there be at least one country, out of nearly two hundred, with minimal government, free trade, open borders, decriminalized drugs, no welfare state and no public education system?
When you ask libertarians if they can point to a libertarian country, you are likely to get a baffled look, followed, in a few moments, by something like this reply: While there is no purely libertarian country, there are countries which have pursued policies of which libertarians would approve: Chile, with its experiment in privatized Social Security, for example, and Sweden, a big-government nation which, however, gives a role to vouchers in schooling.
But this isn’t an adequate response. Libertarian theorists have the luxury of mixing and matching policies to create an imaginary utopia. A real country must function simultaneously in different realms—defense and the economy, law enforcement and some kind of system of support for the poor. Being able to point to one truly libertarian country would provide at least some evidence that libertarianism can work in the real world.
Some political philosophies pass this test. For much of the global center-left, the ideal for several generations has been Nordic social democracy—what the late liberal economist Robert Heilbroner described as “a slightly idealized Sweden.” Other political philosophies pass the test, even if their exemplars flunk other tests. Until a few decades ago, supporters of communism in the West could point to the Soviet Union and other Marxist-Leninist dictatorships as examples of “really-existing socialism.” They argued that, while communist regimes fell short in the areas of democracy and civil rights, they proved that socialism can succeed in a large-scale modern industrial society.
While the liberal welfare-state left, with its Scandinavian role models, remains a vital force in world politics, the pro-communist left has been discredited by the failure of the Marxist-Leninist countries it held up as imperfect but genuine models. Libertarians have often proclaimed that the economic failure of Marxism-Leninism discredits not only all forms of socialism but also moderate social-democratic liberalism.
But think about this for a moment. If socialism is discredited by the failure of communist regimes in the real world, why isn’t libertarianism discredited by the absence of any libertarian regimes in the real world? Communism was tried and failed. Libertarianism has never even been tried on the scale of a modern nation-state, even a small one, anywhere in the world.
Lacking any really-existing libertarian countries to which they can point, the free-market right is reduced to ranking countries according to “economic freedom.” Somewhat different lists are provided by the Fraser Institute .. http://www.freetheworld.com/release.html .. in Canada and the Heritage Foundation .. http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking .. in Washington, D.C.
According to their similar global maps of economic freedom, the economically-free countries of the world are by and large the mature, well-established industrial democracies: the U.S. and Canada, the nations of western Europe and Japan. But none of these countries, including the U.S., is anywhere near a libertarian paradise. Indeed, the government share of GDP in these and similar OECD countries is around forty percent—nearly half the economy.
Even worse, the economic-freedom country rankings are biased toward city-states and small countries. For example, in the latest ranking of economic liberty by the Heritage Foundation .. http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking , the top five nations are Hong Kong (a city, not a country), Singapore (a city-state), Australia, New Zealand and Switzerland (small-population countries).
With the exception of Switzerland, four out of the top five were small British overseas colonies which played interstitial roles in the larger British empire. Even though they are formally sovereign today, these places remain fragments of larger defense systems and larger markets. They are able to engage in free riding on the provision of public goods, like security and huge consumer populations, by other, bigger states.
Australia and New Zealand depended for protection first on the British empire and now on the United States. Its fabled militias to the contrary, Switzerland might not have maintained its independence for long if Nazi Germany had won World War II.
These countries play specialized roles in much larger regional and global markets, rather as cities or regions do in a large nation-state like the U.S. Hong Kong and Singapore remain essentially entrepots for international trade. Switzerland is an international banking and tax haven. What works for them would not work for a giant nation-state like the U.S. (number 10 on the Heritage list of economic freedom) or even medium-sized countries like Germany (number 19) or Japan (number 24).
And then there is Mauritius.
According to the Heritage Foundation, the U.S. has less economic freedom than Mauritius, another small island country, this one off the southeast coast of Africa. At number 8, Mauritius is two rungs above the U.S., at number 10 in the global index of economic liberty.
The Heritage Foundation is free to define economic freedom however it likes, by its own formula weighting government size, freedom of trade, absence of regulation and so on. What about factors other than economic freedom that shape the quality of life of citizens?
How about education? According to the CIA World Fact book, the U.S. spends more than Mauritius—5.4 percent of GDP in 2009 compared to only 3.7 percent in Mauritius in 2010. For the price of that extra expenditure, which is chiefly public, the U.S. has a literacy rate of 99 percent, compared to only 88.5 percent in economically-freer Mauritius.
Infant mortality? In economically-more-free Mauritius there are about 11 deaths per 1,000 live births—compared to 5.9 in the economically-less-free U.S. Maternal mortality in Mauritius is at 60 deaths per 100,000 live births, compared to 21 in the U.S. Economic liberty comes at a price in human survival, it would seem. Oh, well—at least Mauritius is economically free!
Even to admit such trade-offs—like higher infant mortality, in return for less government—would undermine the claim of libertarians that Americans and other citizens of advanced countries could enjoy the same quality of life, but at less cost, if most government agencies and programs were replaced by markets and for-profit firms. Libertarians seem to have persuaded themselves that there is no significant trade-off between less government and more national insecurity, more crime, more illiteracy and more infant and maternal mortality, among other things.
It’s a seductive vision—enjoying the same quality of life that today’s heavily-governed rich nations enjoy, with lower taxes and less regulation. The vision is so seductive, in fact, that we are forced to return to the question with which we began: if libertarianism is not only appealing but plausible, why hasn’t any country anywhere in the world ever tried it? http://www.salon.com/2013/06/04/the_question_libertarians_just_cant_answer/
This post specifically to your 2nd down,
Thom Hartmann Eviscerates Right-Libertarianism
maybe because that's as far as i've gone this time, which is most informative .. see also ..
Rand Paul: Drama Queen Or Secret Terrorist? [...] Libertarians are a people constantly in search of issues to be self-righteous about. This is the problem of a political movement about “freedom” peopled largely by white men with college degrees and above-average incomes: there’s not a lot of freedom they don’t already have, and not a lot of situations where their civil rights are being potentially trampled. The TSA is a wonderful thing for contemporary American libertarianism; it’s one of not many places where a upper middle class Linux engineer can actually stand off against an invasive government. https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=71317499
I was looking to see if something like American Libertarianism is (or American Libertarians are) different from any other Libertarians in the world was on the board, because of a certainty i read a sentiment as that somewhere, yet can't find it on a Google search either.
Shrug. Can't get everything you wish for, eh. LOL.
Rep. Eric Swalwell, Democratic congressman from California, comments on the news that former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn will testify in front of Congress in exchange for immunity. Duration: 4:06
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvvDXwttt2E [the festivities commence (following the intro, a worthy self-parody, beginning at c. the 8:55 mark) at c. the 15:40 mark (mic off for the first little bit); with comments]
*
Alex Jones in 1999: Putin is a Terrorist Demon, Wants to Nuke the USA
Shane Harris, senior writer for The Wall Street Journal, talks with Rachel Maddow about breaking news that disgraced Donald Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn has offered to testify in the Russia investigation in exchange for immunity. Duration: 15:48
Rachel Maddow looks at new reporting that the source of intelligence given to Rep. Devin Nunes was the was the White House, leading to the question, why was the White House looking at that intelligence in the first place? Duration: 5:48
Congressman Jim Himes, member of the House Intelligence Committee, talks with Rachel Maddow about what it would mean to grant immunity the Mike Flynn in exchange for testimony and what considerations would go into granting such immunity. Duration: 7:20
Immunity in presidential scandals has complicated history
The Rachel Maddow Show 3/30/17
Michael Beschloss, NBC News presidential historian, talks with Rachel Maddow about the historical precedent for immunity granted in a presidential scandal. Duration: 4:21
Rachel Maddow shares video of testimony by Clinton Watts, former FBI special agent, at today's Senate Intelligence Committee hearing in which Watts explains how Russian fake news operations were made more effective because Donald Trump cited those stories. Duration: 1:36
Trump scandals risk inuring Americans to government corruption
The Rachel Maddow Show 3/30/17
Rachel Maddow reviews a list of less reported but no less outrageous current Trump administration scandals and notes that beyond the big Trump Russia scandal, Americans have to retain their ability to be shocked by corruption if the U.S. is to remain a leading liberal democracy. Duration: 9:16
Bombshell report: Michael Flynn will testify... for immunity
The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell 3/30/17
Michael Flynn is reportedly willing to be interviewed by Congress after being fired by Donald Trump. Plus, new reports about who provided classified info to House Intel Chairman Devin Nunes. Malcolm Nance, Nayyera Haq, and Kathleen Clarke join Joy Reid. Duration: 14:02
Reports: Michael Flynn offering Russia testimony for immunity
The 11th Hour with Brian Williams 3/30/17
MSNBC's Brian Williams discusses with his panel the breaking news that fmr. Trump National Security Adviser is reportedly offering his testimony to Russia for immunity With Jeremy Bash, Julie Pace, & Robert Costa. Duration: 11:28
Flynn's lawyer: 'General Flynn certainly has a story to tell'
The 11th Hour with Brian Williams 3/30/17
MSNBC'S Brian Williams shares the statement from Michael Flynn's attorney responding to reports Flynn is offering his testimony on Russia for immunity and discusses with his panel. Duration: 4:03
Reports: White House officials helped Rep. Nunes get intelligence
The 11th Hour with Brian Williams 3/30/17
MSNBC's Brian Williams discusses the other major story of the day - reports GOP House Intel. Chairman Nunes had a White House assist when viewing intelligence he later shared with Pres. Trump. Duration: 6:27
Jeremy Bash: If White House is a runaway train, brakes are out
The 11th Hour with Brian Williams 3/30/17
MSNBC's Brian Williams asks former CIA Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash to give some perspective on news that Michael Flynn is reportedly looking to trade Russia testimony for legal immunity. Duration: 0:49
Naming names, Trump takes on members of his own party
The 11th Hour with Brian Williams 3/30/17
Armed with 140 characters, Pres. Trump sent out a tweetstorm targeting members of the House Freedom Caucus. Will they fall in line or will the strategy backfire? MSNBC's Brian Williams has more. Duration: 9:01
First Daughter Ivanka Trump gets a White House job, recently impeached South Korean President Park Geun-hye is arrested, and Donald Trump fights with his fellow Republicans.
Full Show - Legendary Alex Jones Broadcast: You Don’t Want To Miss This One - 03/31/2017
Published on Mar 31, 2017 by The Alex Jones Channel
Friday, March 31st 2017[, with an appearance by Jerome Corsi]: Defense Secretary James Mattis said "North Korea must be stopped," at a press conference in London. WikiLeaks reveals how a CIA computer code disguises hack attacks to appear Chinese or Russian in origin. Navy Seal veteran Craig Sawyer will join the broadcast to discuss his non-profit organization dedicated to exposing pedophiles. We'll cover the state of America's relationship with Russia and Mike Flynn's offer to testify over alleged Russian connections.
Holocaust Survivor Slams ICE Official: "History is Not on Your Side!"
Published on Mar 30, 2017 by Reich-Wing Watch
An 87-year-old Holocaust survivor named Bernard Marks took to the mic to warn Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Acting Director Thomas Homan and Sheriff Scott Jones that "history was not on [their] side."
Flynn Immunity Request 'A Grave and Momentous Step'
All In with Chris Hayes 3/31/17
The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee said it was too soon to consider the ousted national security adviser's request for immunity in exchange for testimony. Duration: 5:22
Donald Trump has made Chicago his punching bag but the reality is far more complicated. All In travels back to Chicago for this in depth report on the gun violence and trauma in that city. Duration: 12:42
White House meddling threatens Trump Russia probe integrity
The Rachel Maddow Show 3/31/17
Ned Price, former senior director of the National Security Council, talks with Rachel Maddow about concerns that the Donald Trump administration is actively working to interrupt or pervert the investigation into Trump campaign ties to Russia in the 2016 election. Duration: 15:00
Clearer picture of Russian 'active measures' takes shape
The Rachel Maddow Show 3/31/17
Rachel Maddow looks at recent testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on the tactic used by Russia to interfere in the U.S. election process. Duration: 13:41
Trump campaign rhetoric aligned with Russian propaganda
The Rachel Maddow Show 3/31/17
Clinton Watts, former FBI special agent, talks with Rachel Maddow about how Donald Trump's parroting of Russian fake news and propaganda aided the Russian effort to interfere in the U.S. election. Duration: 6:18
FBI's Trump investigation proceeds despite political headwind
The Rachel Maddow Show 3/31/17
Clinton Watts, former FBI special agent and counterintelligence expert, talks with Rachel Maddow about his confidence in the various investigative bodies probing the links between the Donald Trump campaign and Russia. Duration: 2:38
The Senate and House Intel Committees rejected Flynn's request for immunity in exchange for testifying. Plus, Rep. Adam Schiff intimates that Chairman Devin Nunes overreacted to classified docs he saw at the W.H. Michael Isikoff, David Corn & Tim Mak join Joy Reid. Duration: 12:45
Watch how Donald Trump's early-morning tweet about Pres. Obama tapping his "wires" has evolved into a scandal that's consumed the Trump White House, the House Intelligence Committee and even Speaker Paul Ryan. Joy Reid discusses with Nick Kristof and Rick Wilson. Duration: 8:09
Published on Mar 31, 2017 by Real Time with Bill Maher
In his editorial New Rule, Bill Maher calls out the cronies who get up every day and try to make Donald Trump's ludicrous and dangerous pronouncements sound normal and sane.
An electronic benefit card for Georgia's food stamp program sits on the counter of Shinholster Grocery & Meat in Irwinton, Ga., Nov. 21, 2013. Bryan Meltz/The New York Times/Redux
By Steve Benen 04/01/17 08:20 AM
First up from the God Machine this week is a congressional Republican relying on Scripture – or at least trying to – in order to push a conservative line on food stamps. The Washington Post reported [ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/03/31/gop-lawmaker-the-bible-says-the-unemployed-shall-not-eat/ ] on Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Tex.) pushing work requirements in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by quoting the New Testament.
The biblical passage, 2 Thessalonians 3-10, was a rebuttal to one of the hearing’s expert witnesses, a representative of the Jewish anti-hunger group MAZON. (He referenced Leviticus.) It is also a familiar refrain to anyone who has watched past debates about SNAP.
House Republicans have historically cited the verse – “if a man will not work, he shall not eat” – as justification for cutting some adults’ SNAP benefits. Arrington referenced the verse in a discussion about increasing the work requirements for unemployed adults on the food stamp program.
There are two key problems with the argument: one substantive, the other theological.
First, to suggest struggling Americans who rely on food assistance are lazy freeloaders, unwilling to work, is at odds with the evidence. The Post noted data [ https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/snap/ABAWD-Info13.pdf ] from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which found that “nearly two-thirds of SNAP recipients are children, seniors and people with disabilities,” the vast majority of the remaining third have jobs. In fact, 86% of Americans who receive SNAP benefits work 30 or more hours per week. The rest include, among others, teenagers aging out of the foster care system, the homeless, and recently released convicts.
The article added, many of the adults on SNAP “want to work,” but “effectively can’t.”
As for the New Testament, context matters. Religion Dispatches had a report [ http://religiondispatches.org/gop-lawmaker-botches-bible-to-punish-poor/ ] a few years ago, explaining that the scriptural passage in question refers to a group of people who believed the Second Coming was imminent. They stopped working, not because they were indolent, but because they were waiting for the literal apocalypse.
The Religion Dispatches piece warned against depriving poor families of food today based on “a verse written for a specific time, a specific place, and specific situation in Thessalonica thousands of years ago.”
That sounds like good advice.
Also from the God Machine this week:
* Bad news [ http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/montana-docese-backruptcy-sex-abuse-claims ] for another Catholic archdiocese: “A Montana Roman Catholic diocese will file for bankruptcy protection as part of a settlement with 72 people who filed sex abuse claims, church officials said Friday. The Diocese of Great Falls-Billings said it expected to make the Chapter 11 reorganization filing later in the day and the diocese and its insurance carriers would contribute to a fund to compensate victims and set aside additional money for those who have not yet come forward.”
Judge to Trump: No protection for speech inciting violence
In this March 1, 2016 file photo, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during a rally in Louisville, Ky. On Friday, March 31, 2017, a federal judge rejected Trump’s free speech defense against a lawsuit accusing him of inciting violence against protesters during his campaign. (AP Photo/John Bazemore, File)
By The Associated Press Apr. 1, 2017 8:00 PM EDT
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — A federal judge has rejected President Donald Trump's free speech defense against a lawsuit accusing him of inciting violence against protesters at a campaign rally.
Trump's lawyers sought to dismiss the lawsuit by three protesters who say they were roughed up by his supporters at a March 1, 2016 rally in Louisville, Kentucky. They argued that Trump didn't intend for his supporters to use force.
Two women and a man say they were shoved and punched by audience members at Trump's command. Much of it was captured on video and widely broadcast during the campaign, showing Trump pointing at the protesters and repeating "get them out."
Judge David J. Hale in Louisville ruled Friday that the suit against Trump, his campaign and three of his supporters can proceed. Hale found ample facts supporting allegations that the protesters' injuries were a "direct and proximate result" of Trump's actions, and noted that the Supreme Court has ruled out constitutional protections for speech that incites violence.
"It is plausible that Trump's direction to 'get 'em out of here' advocated the use of force," the judge wrote. "It was an order, an instruction, a command."
Plaintiffs Kashiya Nwanguma, Molly Shah and Henry Brousseau allege that they were physically attacked by several members of the audience, including Matthew Heimbach, Alvin Bamberger and an unnamed defendant they have yet to be able to identify.
Bamberger later apologized to the Korean War Veterans Association, whose uniform he wore at the rally. He wrote that he "physically pushed a young woman down the aisle toward the exit" after "Trump kept saying 'get them out, get them out," according to the lawsuit.
Heimbach, for his part, sought to dismiss the lawsuit's discussion of his association with a white nationalist group and of statements he made about how Trump could advance the group's interests. The judge declined, saying such information could be important context when determining punitive damages.
The judge also declined to remove allegations that Nwanguma, an African-American, was the victim of racial, ethnic and sexist slurs from the crowd at the rally. This context may support the plaintiffs' claims of negligence and incitement by Trump and his campaign, the judge said.
"While the words themselves are repulsive, they are relevant to show the atmosphere in which the alleged events occurred," Hale wrote.
Lawyers for Trump and his campaign also argued that they cannot be held liable because they had no duty to the plaintiffs, who assumed the risk of injury when they decided to protest at the rally. The judge countered that under the law, every person has a duty to every other person to use care to prevent foreseeable injury.
"In sum, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that their harm was foreseeable and that the Trump Defendants had a duty to prevent it," the judge ruled, referring the case to a federal magistrate, Judge H. Brent Brennenstuhl, to handle preliminary litigation, discovery and settlement efforts.
Matt Drudge Breaks Silence In Support Of Trump: 4/2/17 Full Show
Published on Apr 2, 2017 by The Alex Jones Channel
Sunday, April 2nd 2017: Drudge Gives Rare Interview - President Trump is in a crisis “on many fronts” mainly due to establishment Republicans in Congress, media pioneer Matt Drudge said on the Savage Nation. "I suspect there is a sabotage," he told radio host Michael Savage on Friday. Former Navy SEAL Craig Sawyer also provides key updates on the law enforcement raids against pedophile rings across the world and how he's moving forward with his documentary series on the subject, especially after he was blocked from seeking donations on a crowdfunding site.
Gay Men Are Being Rounded Up And Killed In Chechnya: Report A Chechen spokesman denied the report, saying, “You cannot arrest or repress people who just don’t exist.” Ramzan Kadyrov, the head of the Chechen Republic and a vocal supporter of Russian President Vladimir Putin, is seen being sworn into office in 2016 after being re-elected for a third term. Kadyrov has denied that there are any gay people in Chechnya. Chechnya’s leader claims there are no gay people in the Russian region. A gay rights activist is seen being detained by police during an LGBT community rally in Moscow in 2015. 04/02/2017 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/chechen-gays-arrested-killed-reports-say_us_58e12a65e4b0b3918c843db6
On his birthday broadcast, Savage is joined by Matt Drudge as the two media giants offer up their opinions on Trump's America. Michael then reveals his mission for the years ahead.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
