By Nathan Barton
In the last two commentaries, I discussed government and weeds.
In those, I raised the question of how government enforces laws, even without having any legitimate authority to do so. Laws which are supposed to protect people (especially children and stupid people). But laws which do NOT. Because these laws seldom really accomplish what ostensibly they set out to do.
Laws against weeds (whether noxious weeds in fields, yards, and roadsides; or marijuana) do not eliminate weeds, and they really do not control people being exposed to weeds. Laws which supposedly prevent murder do not. Laws which theoretically prevent fraud and theft do not. Instead, they simply give government power and money. They expand government and the parasites in government who live off of the rest of the people of the Fifty States.
(I wasn’t saying that weeds, or weed, are good. Or killing. Or theft and fraud. These things are bad for people.)
Continue reading
Bizarre reasoning, indeed – free speech?
By Nathan Barton
I seem to agree with Freedom Net Daily, which had this headline: “Judge: I have no earthly idea what the First Amendment means or requires” FND posted a NBC News story, which read in part, “President Donald Trump cannot block Twitter users for the political views they have expressed, a federal judge in Manhattan ruled on Wednesday. Blocking users from viewing his own Twitter account — a feature offered by the social media platform — is unconstitutional and a violation of the First Amendment, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald wrote in her ruling. … The government had argued that blocked individuals could still access the president’s tweets. The judge agreed but said that even considering the president’s First Amendment rights, preventing users from interacting directly with him on Twitter represented a violation of a ‘real, albeit narrow, slice of speech.’”
This is, to my way of thinking, bizarre indeed. If I understand what this judge is saying, several situations are possible. Continue reading →