Tim Walz says he cares about public safety and freedom, but he doesn't. In 2020, he waited 3 days to deploy the National Guard to stop rioting. In 2022, he demanded censorship. Similar story for Newsom, Starmer, and Trudeau. They unleash anarchy and then demand tyranny.
For hundreds of years, liberals have been fierce opponents of authoritarianism. It has traditionally been liberals, not conservatives, who fought against restrictions on free speech, defended the right to privacy from the government, and fought abuses of power by government agencies. In contrast, conservatives have placed a higher value on maintaining social order and upholding traditional moral hierarchies.
But increasingly, it’s been liberal politicians who have demanded authoritarian restrictions on free speech and personal freedom. In December 2022, Democratic Vice Presidential candidate and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz claimed, “There's no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech and especially around our democracy.” In fact, the First Amendment protects both. And in 2020, Walz implemented a Covid snitch line and encouraged residents to report violations of pandemic restrictions.
It turns out he wasn’t alone. The Civil Rights Department of California Governor Gavin Newsom introduced last year a snitch line and urged citizens to report their fellow citizens for alleged hate speech. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has called for greater censorship of social media platforms, and British police have over the last few days arrested three people for what they posted online. And Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has demanded greater online censorship, froze bank accounts of protesting truckers, and is pushing legislation that could send a person to prison for life for speech.
Each of those men would defend such measures as required for public safety. They would argue that misinformation and hate speech online lead to real-world violence like the riots we have seen in Britain. COVID-19 transmission threatened public health. And something had to be done to peacefully end the trucker protest.
But none of those measures was required because there were other ways to deal with those problems. It is a gross simplification to attribute Britain’s recent riots to online misinformation and the best antidote to misinformation remains good information, not censorship. There was never any reason to think that people outside not wearing masks were a sufficient threat to public health to justify a snitch line reminiscent of Communist totalitarianism, violating both privacy and personal liberty. And, the government had other ways to end the trucker protest and indeed used them, making the bank freezing a gratuitous and authoritarian overreach.
What’s more, the authoritarian measures imposed by these leaders were highly selective in nature. None of the four politicians named demanded censorship of the misinformation and hate speech that spread after the killing of George Floyd, which one could argue contributed to the Black Lives Matter (BLM) riots as much if not more than the ones over the last week in Britain. Nor have the politicians called for censorship to halt the sharp increase of illegal migration. And all of the politicians have adopted a different standard of policing of protests by BLM and other left-wing causes than for anti-immigration, Freedom Convoy truckers, and right-wing ones, which some have called “two-tier” policing.
In the case of gender, liberal politicians have pursued anarchy for medical professionals and tyranny for anyone who stands in the way of so-called “gender-affirming care.” On the one hand, liberal politicians like Walz and Newsom have championed the right of medical professionals to block puberty, prescribe cross-sex hormones, and perform surgeries. On the other, they have increasingly taken over from parents the right to decide what happens to their children.
As such, liberal politicians like Walz, Newsom, Trudeau, and Starmer are simultaneously creating greater authoritarianism and greater anarchy. This is in stark contrast to liberals in the past who fought authoritarianism and demanded greater free speech, personal freedom, and privacy. What exactly happened? How did liberals become advocates of anarcho-tyranny?
But increasingly, it’s been liberal politicians who have demanded authoritarian restrictions on free speech and personal freedom. In December 2022, Democratic Vice Presidential candidate and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz claimed, “There's no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech and especially around our democracy.” In fact, the First Amendment protects both. And in 2020, Walz implemented a Covid snitch line and encouraged residents to report violations of pandemic restrictions.
It turns out he wasn’t alone. The Civil Rights Department of California Governor Gavin Newsom introduced last year a snitch line and urged citizens to report their fellow citizens for alleged hate speech. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has called for greater censorship of social media platforms, and British police have over the last few days arrested three people for what they posted online. And Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has demanded greater online censorship, froze bank accounts of protesting truckers, and is pushing legislation that could send a person to prison for life for speech.
Each of those men would defend such measures as required for public safety. They would argue that misinformation and hate speech online lead to real-world violence like the riots we have seen in Britain. COVID-19 transmission threatened public health. And something had to be done to peacefully end the trucker protest.
But none of those measures was required because there were other ways to deal with those problems. It is a gross simplification to attribute Britain’s recent riots to online misinformation and the best antidote to misinformation remains good information, not censorship. There was never any reason to think that people outside not wearing masks were a sufficient threat to public health to justify a snitch line reminiscent of Communist totalitarianism, violating both privacy and personal liberty. And, the government had other ways to end the trucker protest and indeed used them, making the bank freezing a gratuitous and authoritarian overreach.
What’s more, the authoritarian measures imposed by these leaders were highly selective in nature. None of the four politicians named demanded censorship of the misinformation and hate speech that spread after the killing of George Floyd, which one could argue contributed to the Black Lives Matter (BLM) riots as much if not more than the ones over the last week in Britain. Nor have the politicians called for censorship to halt the sharp increase of illegal migration. And all of the politicians have adopted a different standard of policing of protests by BLM and other left-wing causes than for anti-immigration, Freedom Convoy truckers, and right-wing ones, which some have called “two-tier” policing.
In the case of gender, liberal politicians have pursued anarchy for medical professionals and tyranny for anyone who stands in the way of so-called “gender-affirming care.” On the one hand, liberal politicians like Walz and Newsom have championed the right of medical professionals to block puberty, prescribe cross-sex hormones, and perform surgeries. On the other, they have increasingly taken over from parents the right to decide what happens to their children.
As such, liberal politicians like Walz, Newsom, Trudeau, and Starmer are simultaneously creating greater authoritarianism and greater anarchy. This is in stark contrast to liberals in the past who fought authoritarianism and demanded greater free speech, personal freedom, and privacy. What exactly happened? How did liberals become advocates of anarcho-tyranny?
Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning journalism, read the rest of the article, and watch the rest of the video!
https://x.com/shellenberger/status/1821324100377440335
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
