Category Archives: Libertarian

Montville A public hearing will be held Thursday intheCouncil Chambers at Town Hall at 5:30 p.m. tolet the public address theredistrictingofthe municipality's voting precincts, turning six districts into five.

The state and U.S. constitutions require redistricting every 10 years based on federal census data. In Connecticut, that process determines how many people belong to the 151 state House districts, the 36 state Senate districts and the five U.S. House districts.

Jeff Rogers is the town's Republican registrar of voters and the New London County chairmanfor theRegistrars of Voters Association of Connecticut. Rogers said Montville is one of a few towns in the area that needed extensive redistricting.

Rogers said he andRobin Marquand, the Democratic registrar of voters, have been working on redistricting the voting precincts since they received the redistricting mapof state House of Representative districts in November. He said they set out to make the changes ahead of state party conventions in May in case there is a primary election.

The changesmeantMontville was pushed out of the 42ndstate HouseDistrict, with state Rep. Mike France now running for Congress, Rogers said, and western parts of the town are now in the 37th District.That means some voting districts, specifically 3, 4 and 6,nowwould be split amongmultiple House districts. The 42nd state House District is now in Fairfield County.

Rogers said for example, this would place a lot of stress on the staff of theFair Oaks polling site, who would have tomake sureDistrict 3 and 4 voters filed correctly into three separate linesto vote onthree different House seats, alldepending on where the voters live.

To align better with the state's redistricting, hesaid their solution was to dissolve District6, and push the bulk of it into District 1 and a portion of it into District 5.

Under that plan, Rogers saidthe polling site for Districts 1 and 3 will be Town Hall. District 4 will remain at Fair Oaks School and Districts 2 and 5 will remain at Mohegan Elementary School,all of whichis subject to change.

"The bottom line is we'll reduce the number of voters at Fair Oaks, making it more streamlined and time-efficient," Rogers said. "On the registrars end, it means more work."

Rogers said mapping was not the hard part. He said the hard part is going through the legislative process to change the voting districts. What follows is the public hearing, the Town Council's approval and notifying all residents of the changes,whichgo in effect 30 days after the council's approval.

Rogers added that the changes have no effect on party lines,since out of 11,318 registered voters,a little more than half are unaffiliated, independent, Libertarian or Green.

The Town Council is set to meet in the chambers following the public hearing at 6 p.m. and will vote to approve or deny the voting district changes. The council also will vote on items the COVID-19 Impact Study Committee is proposing should be funded with American Rescue Plan funds.

The committee membersare set to meet before the public hearing at 5 p.m. for a final approval of the items they will propose to the council.

Among the items under consideration are$106,106 for two vehiclesrequested byFire Marshal Paul Barnes; $95,500 for a fingerprint machine,surveillance equipment and morerequested by thepolice department; and $23,000requested by thesenior center and social services.

j.vazquez@theday.com

More here:

Montville meetings Thursday to include public hearing on voting redistricting - theday.com

Arkansas voters this November will be seeing a lot of Ls on their ballot.

Thats because in addition to Republicans and Democrats, more than 50 Libertarians were nominated at the partys convention Saturday.

Arkansas only viable third party will contest races for governor, U.S. Senate, three U.S. House seats, 39 state legislative seats, and a number of local races, assuming every candidate nominated Saturday actually runs. The filing period opened Tuesday and continues through noon March 1.

A lot of the interest came after Ricky Harrington received 33.55 percent of the vote in a two-person race against Sen. Tom Cotton in 2020. Harrington is running for governor this year.

The majority of those votes almost certainly came from Democrats who dont support Cotton. Their candidate dropped out hours after the filing period ended, so they had nowhere else to go.

But Harrington, a soft-spoken, self-described stay-at-home dad, also proved to be a decent candidate. He acquitted himself well in the Arkansas PBS debate, which Cotton skipped, and he raised almost $80,000 for his campaign. Thats a lot for a third party candidate.

The partys executive director, Dr. Michael Pakko, said Harrington attracted national attention in Libertarian circles. This year, a political action committee mailed a letter to party members urging them to run with Ricky.

The idea was to get people to sign up to run on the same ticket with Ricky Harrington, and a remarkable number of people responded to that appeal, Pakko said. Many people who were here today, they were asked, why did you decide to run for office? The answer was, Well, first of all, I got the letter asking me to. And then they went on to say why they decided that was a good idea to do.

Libertarians consider most government actions to be acts of aggression and force. They prefer individual choice and voluntary associations. They support cutting taxes and government spending. They also support a hands-off approach on social issues, so most Libertarians are pro-choice on abortion and favor marijuana legalization. Some Libertarians are full-fledged anarchists.

Harrington, a former Democrat, is the closest thing to a moderate the party has. As governor, he would establish more accountability for law enforcement officers. He supports legalizing marijuana and would offer clemencies on a case-by-case basis for individuals convicted only of nonviolent possession. He favors more competition in health care and more choice in education. He said Gov. Asa Hutchinson has done the best he could responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. As governor, he said he would not close businesses in a pandemic and would encourage people to wear masks rather than mandating it.

Harrington said his goal is to win. A more realistic and immediate goal would be receiving 3 percent of the vote. The party then would not have to collect signatures to appear on the 2024 ballot. Until then, Arkansas law considers Libertarians a new party.

As an aside, a law passed in 2019 hiked the required number of signatures third parties must collect from 10,000 to 3 percent of the number of voters in the last governors race. Thats almost 26,750 signatures. Libertarians turned in 12,000 verified signatures this year, but theyre able to appear on the ballot, so far, because a judge has issued an injunction against that law.

Assuming theyre on the ballot, Libertarians face a steep uphill climb. Despite what many Americans say, many actually like government when its providing them a service they want, and when its enforcing a value thats important to them. Libertarians would take much of that away. In many ways, the American political system structurally makes it hard for new parties to compete.

So why have them? Because they let candidates, activists and voters stay truer to their convictions instead of settling for what they consider to be the lesser of two evils. They can draw attention to issues and nudge Republicans and Democrats in their direction.

And sometimes new parties can change things. The Republican Party was started in 1854 by anti-slavery activists. Six years later, Abraham Lincoln was elected president. The party that was new in 1854 now is known as the Grand Old Party.

Could the Libertarians win a major race in Arkansas any time soon? I dont think so, but voters deserve choices new ones and old ones, with more than just Rs and Ds beside their names.

View original post here:

Lots of L's on this year's ballot | Opinion | jonesborosun.com - Jonesboro Sun

The Partys Over

Posted by Brad Hessel February 16, 2022 12:59 PM

Commentary by Brad Hessel

Well, ok, maybe not quite yet. But the hosts are clearly cranky, and the guests are leaving in droves. In fact, three decades of consistently faster growth in the ranks of non-party-going independents in North Carolina will soon culminate in a significant milestone: they will become the largest block of registered voters.No one currently alive can remember when the Democrats weren't No. 1 in North Carolina.

This marks a sea change.

Posted by Brian Irving February 11, 2022 10:01 AM

Commentary by Brian Irving

Partisan gerrymandering is bad for democracy whether done by a legislature dominated by one party or a court dominated by another party.

The state Supreme Courts ruling that legislative maps are unconstitutional ignores the plain language of the state constitution to serve a political end. The Democratic justices dismissed the judgment of a bipartisan trial court panel, which twice dismissed the lawsuits, to create a new protected class partisan voters.

Posted by Brian Irving January 22, 2022 12:56 PM

Travis Groo, WakeLP chair, is passionate aboutparents deciding the best method of education for their kids. "Every child learns differently, and at different paces," he writes in an article posted on FreeThePeople.org. "There is no one size fits all curriculum, unless I just havent discovered it yet (if you find it, please do send it my way).

"One thing I do know for certain though is that I do not want the state dictating how, when, and where my kids learn. Perhaps some of you feel the same?"

Go here to read the full article.

Posted by Brian Irving January 14, 2022 12:04 PM

The Libertarian Party of Rockingham County has adopted a highway!

One of our founding principles and a primary reason that we exist is to improve our home community. Caring for our natural environment is one way that we can protect our small section of this planet for future generations.

See the article here:

Libertarian Party of North Carolina

Key Difference Libertarian vs Republican

Libertarianism and Republicanism are two main philosophies that govern within the context of the modern international political system. Libertarianism principles are grounded in the rights of an individual which emphasize on the right to life, right to pursue happiness, liberty etc. Thus, it strongly opposes the governments interference in the individuals personal life matters, interests and decision-making process. Republicanism is the philosophy that emphasizes on the freedom of the individuals while emphasizing more on the moral conduct of people.

Though there are ideological similarities between Libertarian and a Republican the key difference between these two political advocates is that a Libertarian primarily dont believe in a government whereas a Republican believes in a government, or rather a Republican form of a government and such a government should not interfere with individual freedom excessively.

1. Overview and Key Difference2. Who is a Libertarian3. Who is a Republican4. Similarities Between a Libertarian and a Republican5. Side by Side Comparison Libertarian vs Republican in Tabular Form6. Summary

Libertarian; a follower of the Libertarianism political philosophy is someone who believes people are free to involve in any activity as long as they dont create violence or harm others. This philosophy is bounded by the Non-Aggression Principle which means none may use violence, coercion or any use of force for any other apart from using it as a self-defense mechanism.

As defined by Merriam Webster, Libertarian is an advocate of the doctrine of free will or a person who upholds the principles of individuallibertyespecially of thought and action. Similarly, the Cambridge dictionary explains a Libertarian as a person who believes that people should be free to think and behave as they want and should not have limits put on them by governments.

Fig 01:Howard Stern Libertarian Party

Their motto is Live and lets Live. which is suggestive of the fact that people are free to do any form of activity ranging from eating, smoking, taking drugs, having varied sexual preferences in life with anyone they like as long as they dont harm anyone. They simply dont believe either in the existence of a government (to interfere with an individuals free will) or in the process of electing.

Thus, a Libertarian never believes in any form of a government, unlike a Republican. They believe people themselves can use their own sense of self-reliability and self-defense thus an exterior government or a form of the ruling is not necessary for the humans.

Republican is primarily a person who supports and believes in a representative republican government which gives the individual freedom, simultaneously considers on maintaining the moral/social norms of the country under the rule of the government. Thus, a Republican believes in a government where it is elected by the people so that those who are elected are none other than the representatives of the people.

As defined in the Cambridge dictionary, a Republican is a supporter of government by elected representatives of the people rather than government by a king or queen. Similarly, Merriam Webster explains a Republican as one that favors or supports a republican form of government. Thus, unlike libertarian, A Republican advocates and believes in the form of a government though they both rely on the opinion that the government has no right to control the free will of an individual.

Fig 02: The emblem of the GOP (Grand Od Party), The main Republican party in United States of America

Similarly, a Republican believes in a Republican form of a government which centers its role in enabling people to secure the benefits of the society for themselves and for others. Moreover, such a form of government should limit its intervention to individuals work and should only intervene when the society cannot function at the level of the individual so that, the particular society can reach prosperity on its own.

Some of the core beliefs as outlined on the National Website of National Republican Committee can be indicated as follows;

Republican is a person who supports the form of government by elected representatives of the people rather than government by a king or queen

A Libertarian and a Republican both support the liberty or the individual freedom. Thus, superficially they share similar ideological views. However, unlike a Libertarian who basically doesnt concern about social inequalities or civic virtue, a Republican believes in promoting a government that can concern in the maintenance of civic virtue in the society. This can be highlighted as the difference between a Libertarian and a Republican.

You can download PDF version of this article and use it for offline purposes as per citation note. Please download PDF version hereDifference Between Libertarian and Republican

1.What is Republican:Republican Definition. Accessed 30 September,2017. Available here2.Preamble of the Republican National Committee Accessed 30 September,2017. Available here

1.Howard Stern Libertarian Party by Ted Van Pelt (CC BY 2.0) via Flickr2. Republican Disc By Republican Party Republican National Committee, Public Domain via Commons Wikimedia

See the article here:

Difference Between Libertarian and Republican | Compare ...

If Canada, like much of Europe, often foretells the future of the United States, then conservatives ought to be watching Ottawa's response to the ongoing trucker protest. This populist revolt against pandemic restrictions, among other things, has already scrambled debates over civil disobedience and demonstrations that impact innocent third parties.

But what conservatives ought to be thinking about is what the Canadian government is doing to crack down on the "Freedom Convoy" as the right discusses anew the proper limits to political authority. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is essentially using anti-terrorism powers to attempt to curtail private funding of these protests. This means going after crowdfunding websites and payment processors as surely as any obscure right-wing political outfit.

The type of libertarian-leaning conservative who has played a large role in the movement dating back at least to Barry Goldwater, if not the anti-New Deal Old Right, would understand this is the predictable result of giving the government too much power and flexibility to define enemies who can be spied on, sanctioned, or have their bank accounts frozen.

Newer populist conservatives may have a different takeaway: the at least partially voluntary participation and cooperation of private financial institutions, who would never similarly intervene on behalf of the government to defund, say, Black Lives Matter protests, no matter how shady the money behind the organizations involved.

Conservatives, they would argue, are being selectively denied access to commerce. And if large companies are too woke to do anything about it, the right's politicians are going to have to. It is certainly true that something more powerful than ideological abstractions is necessary to check the state power wielded by their opponents.

At the same time, the Canadian Emergencies Act, like our own Patriot Act, is being used in ways that ought to remind the populists of a cliche favored by old school conservatives: a government powerful enough to give you everything you want also possesses the power to take everything you have. Cryptocurrencies and balky crowdfunding platformsmight offer something approximating a free-market solution.

One thing righties of all stripes might be able to come together on: None of them should feel confident they won't be viewed as the real conservative crazies at some point.

Read the rest here:

The lessons of the Freedom Convoy crackdown - The Week Magazine

Fight disinformation. Get a daily recap of the facts that matter. Sign up for the free Mother Jones newsletter.

The city of Ottawa is under siege for the third week in a row, as anti-vaccine protesters continue to paralyze the downtown business district. Last week, I wrote about how white nationalist organizers in Southern California are planning similar protests in the United States, and how their followers appear to be mostly parents. There were moms offering to bring Girl Scout cookies to sustain convoy memberssome joked about putting flyers advertising the convoys into their kids school valentines.

In response to my piece, some readers expressed disbelief. How could so many parents get mixed up with an extremist movement? Others characterized group members as soccer moms who were bored, or dumb, or maybe both. But the online spread of misinformation in parent communities isnt born of boredom or stupidity. Ive written before about how moms turn to online groups for support and identity:

Many mothers, and perhaps especially the ones who spend a lot of time in Facebook groups, can feel vulnerable, lonely, and overwhelmed. They may have scant family leave and little help at home. Sometimes, their real concerns about their own health and their babies wellbeing have been dismissed by doctors.

For years, purveyors of misinformation about alternative health have exploited these forums to promote theories and practices that arent backed by science and can be dangerous.

But theres another dynamic here, too. Many of the groups urging people to join the convoys have a financial interest in downplaying the effectiveness of vaccines and other protective measures. These groups use the impressive-looking credentials of their leadersphysicians and scientiststo give legitimacy to fringe claims.

Americas Frontline Doctors, a far-right group of physicians, has been cashing in on the pandemic since the beginning. In addition to advocating against vaccines and masks, the group has run its own network of doctors who, for a fee, will prescribe ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and other unprovenand, in some cases, potentially dangerousCovid remedies. The group also has offered full-throated endorsements of the anti-vaccine convoys wreaking havoc in Ottawa. A headline on the groups website on Monday claimed that Canadian PM Trudeaus grip on power is slipping.

The Front LineCOVID-19Critical Care Alliance, a group of scientists and physicians that runs a service connecting people with providers willing to prescribe the same unproven medicines, also supports the convoys. In a tweet on Monday, the group urged its 190,000 followers to take part in a California convoy:

Another notable convoy cheerleader is the group that orchestrated the Great Barrington Declaration, an October 2020 document that sought to remove most public health restrictions under the premise that most Americans would develop Covid immunity through infection. The document was highly influentialTrump adviser Scott Atlas tried to convince the administration to adopt the approach. It was the authors elite credentials that gave the declaration an air of scientific gravitas: The lead signatories are faculty members from Harvard, Stanford, and Oxford, though these institutions never endorsed the extreme herd-immunity strategy, and practically all public health agencies opposed it. What few people realized was that the Great Barrington Declaration was, in fact, a project of the American Institute for Economic Research, a libertarian think tank.

On Sunday, one of the declarations authors, Martin Kulldorff, tweeted out to his 229,000 followers: thank you, #TruckerConvoy. The Brownstone Institute, a think tank created by the Great Barrington Declarations authors, has cheered the convoys as well. In a conversation posted on the Brownstone website, an interviewer asks one of the primary organizers of the Ottawa convoy how it felt to be inspiring Canadians and inspiring similar freedom movements and protests all over the world. The organizer responded, Yes, it is a nice feeling.

The libertarian think tanks involved in this are not pro-workertheyre trying to remove worker protections, says Mallory Harris, a Stanford PhD student who is studying how elite groups of contrarian physicians and scientists have spread disinformation during the pandemic. But they cant actually say that, so they have to find ways to make it seem like this is a working-class thing. And thats where truckers come in.

The imprimatur of doctors groups makes the anti-vaccine convoysand related effortsappear more popular and legitimate than they are, notes Tim Caulfield, a professor of law at University of Albertas School of Public Health and research director of its Health Law Institute.

Caulfield, who studies medical disinformation, points to a McGill study from last April, which found that most of the Covid misinformation shared by Canadians on Twitter originated in the United States. Lets not kid ourselvesthis has been started by individuals with a very strong political agenda, he says. American disinformation groups are trying to exploit the fear and anxiety and frustration that Canadians are feeling.

The outsize influence of rogue medical practitioners on anti-science movements is the focus of No License for Disinformation, a group that urges state medical boards to revoke the licenses of doctors who spread scientific falsehoods. These physicians are doing a lot of damage to the institutions that are ultimately underpinning what we rely upon in a functioning democracy, Nick Sawyer, the groups physician-founder, told me recently.

You wont catch convoy organizers mentioning the profitable networks of doctorsor the libertarian think tanksthat have helped drive the anti-mandate ideology. Theyd rather claim their movement was generated by truckers, parents, and other everyday patriots. But this couldnt be further from the truth: Neither truckers nor most parents believe in abandoning Covid protections. Polls show that two-thirds of Canadians oppose the protests. On Monday, there were signs the Ottawa gridlock is loosening up; a major bridge connecting Canada and the United States was cleared and reopened. But disinformation has a way of persisting. Indeed, Americans version of its neighbors latest troubles is just gearing up.

Original post:

These Doctors' Groups Are Cheering On the Anti-Vax Truckers Mother Jones - Mother Jones

Chris Jones, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and Ricky Harrington Jr. are currently the front-runners for their respective parties. There are eight candidates in total.

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. Were just a few months away from the primary elections that will set the stage for the upcoming race for Arkansas governor.

Current Governor Asa Hutchinson can't run for re-election due to term limits, but theres a field of candidates working to take the job.

Right now, five Democrats, two Republicans, and one Libertarian are all vying to become the next governor of the Natural State.

We want to give you a chance to meet these candidates by the issues they'll govern on.

That's a lot of names to keep track of, so we looked at recent funding which shows Chris Jones, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and Ricky Harrington Jr. as the front-runners in their respective parties.

The other republican candidate is Doc Washburn. The other Democratic candidates are James Russell, Supha Xayprasith-Mays, Anthony Bland, and Jay Martin.

Over the next few weeks, we'll break down how each party's highest funded candidate says they'll run their office.

Tonight, we're getting to know the candidates and their priorities when it comes to Arkansas's economy and industry.

In a crowded race for the Democratic nomination, Chris Jones is currently the highest funded candidate.

The Pine Bluff native is looking to bring his experience as a scientist into the political arena staying close to the center.

"If you really want to, like, stick a label on me, you can stick pragmatic on there. Pragmatic Democrat," Jones said.

Jones is working to refocus how issues like state spending and employment impact the individual Arkansan.

"Really I care about, as I mentioned, P, B, and J preschool, broadband, and jobs which is really education, infrastructure, and economic development," he added.

Jones said overall, he's aiming to take a closer look at how each dollar is spent to try and avoid further taxes.

When asked if there was anything Jones would mind cutting right now or anything hes taking a closer look at, he responded, It's hard to imagine the need for cutting budgets in the educational space."

Jones also said he still wants to see better support for pandemic resources, but with a more direct path to healthcare, something he's heard from frontline workers themselves.

"At the end of the day, what they said works is really providing the financial resources that they need, particularly in the areas that lack staff, that lack the support, but have the need," he explained.

On the Libertarian ticket, Ricky Dale Harrington Jr. is the sole candidate vying for the job.

You may remember his name from the 2020 US Senate race where he received more than 33% of the vote against Tom Cotton.

He's also running on a more practical platform, but he's less focused on change and more focused on maintaining the status quo.

"I'm a very pragmatic person. If it's not broke, don't fix it," Harrington said.

But he said he is looking to fix, or change, how the economy runs in Arkansas.

So, how would Harrington continue to push for growth in an industry with a worker shortage?

We need to start taking a look at circular economies. And these are economies where our waste becomes the product and attracting companies," he explained.

His focus is on securing basic needs before the state's potential for growth. He's aiming to be an option for Arkansans who feel torn at the polls.

"I'm not beholden to any party. I'm beholden to them, the people of Arkansas, regardless of their party," Harrington said. "My path forward is to meet the people where they are."

And finally, the front-running Republican candidate in this race Sarah Huckabee-Sanders.

We gave her campaign four months to do a sit-down interview, but they declined to talk to us, saying they did not have time to share her platform with viewers or have anything to contribute right now.

So we looked to the past events she's held to bring some insight on her plans if she gets the governor's job.

Huckabee-Sanders is the daughter and former staffer of past Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and, more recently, served as White House Press Secretary to former President Donald Trump.

As she exclusively told us at her campaign kickoff event this summer, she wants to focus on developing the outdoor economy.

"I think our outdoor economy is a huge advantage for Arkansas. We call ourselves the Natural State for a reason, we need to go out and own that," she said.

She also hopes to create more skill-based education opportunities.

"I think we have to change the way we look at education... We need to focus on making sure that we're actually putting them on the path to prosperity, she said.

So that when they either graduate from high school, whether it's graduating from a two-year program, a trade school, or a four-year university, they're ready to go out into the workforce."

This only scratches the surface as this series doesn't include the other candidates on the ballot.

In the coming weeks, we'll continue to explain the candidates beliefs on social issues like abortion rights, as well as healthcare concerns like vaccination mandates.

See the original post here:

Arkansas governor's race: What we know about the 3 front-runners - THV11.com KTHV

In The Impostor, a book published in 2014 by the Spanish writer Javier Cercas, there is a brilliant reflection about Enric Marco, a man who fabricated a life of heroism, resistance and captivity by the Nazis. The author had to tell the story, not of who this man had really been (an utterly normal man, a member of the vast, silent, cowardly, grey, depressing majority who always says Yes) but of an exceptional person, one of those singular individuals who always says No, or who says No when everyone else says Yes. Novak Djokovic has not had to lie to become that exceptional individual whom anti-vaxxers see as the man who, amid the apparent meekness of those of us who follow recommendations and obey the rules, said No at a tremendous cost to himself. As BBC journalist Amol Rajan put it in an interview with the tennis star, he is a deeply committed libertarian who believes strongly in individual autonomy.

This fails to address a more sensitive issue: for someone to gain prestige by swimming against the tide, defying the authorities and rebelling against the imposition of the so-called world order, this person needs the rest of us to do the exact opposite of what hes doing. That is to say, for Djokovic to be able to decide not to get vaccinated, it is necessary for the rest of us to already be vaccinated. Only in this way does his gesture take on libertarian overtones, and his health is not likely to be compromised in any case. If we were all Djokovic, just like all the slaves declared themselves to be Spartacus, and we were to announce that the principles of decision-making on my body are more important than any title or anything else, the world would be stuck at home, businesses closed, hospitals overwhelmed and the virus killing people left and right (its not science-fiction: its the pandemic world without vaccines). Djokovic can afford not to get vaccinated because we have done so for him, and that is why the US Open, the Australian Open, Roland Garros, Wimbledon and any global sports event that requires the work, movement and concentration of thousands of people can be held: not because he isnt vaccinated, but because the rest of us are.

And that is the reason why Djokovics words are hard to refute without context. But with context, they change a bit. Has he always made decisions over his own body? Also with regard to viruses that we were vaccinated against as children, precisely to stop those viruses from making a comeback? Does Djokovic believe that if a majority of the worlds population thought and acted like him, the world would look the way it does now? The tennis player clarifies in the interview that he is not against vaccines, not even against Covid-19 vaccines, but that hed rather wait. And he puts some distance between himself and the anti-vaxxer movement, which he says he has never belonged to. And while it is true that its not his fault if a minority made him into their leader, it was also nave to think that this minority would not turn him the worlds top tennis player into a symbol for those who reject scientific progress and its results.

Its not that he would stand out like a sore thumb among that crowd, either. He lied in Australia. He gathered at a public event with a group of people, without wearing a face mask, after testing positive. Years ago he found out that he was allergic to gluten because his nutritionist told him to hold a slice of bread in his left hand while he pressed the right arm. The right arm felt weaker, and gluten was to blame, according to the practitioner. Djokovic also believes that positive thoughts can clean contaminated water because water molecules react to emotions. And he has a spiritual guide named Pepe Imaz, a prophet of love and the world of energies who seems incapable of uttering even a halfway normal sentence. According to Imaz, good vibes can cure everything, even disease.

One is free to choose what to do with their body, whether eating a hamburger or smoking a cigarette. The problem is not when you make sovereign decisions about your own body, but when your sovereignty invades other peoples. On his side of the tennis court, Djokovic is alone; in life, when he walks out of the house, he is not.

English version by Susana Urra.

Read more:

The tennis star and the virus - EL PAS in English

It was an extraordinary way to end nearly two years of restrictions and lockdowns. With no explanatory briefings from either the chief medical officer or chief scientific adviser, no input from Sage and no consultation with Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, the prime minister told a surprised House of Commons he would unilaterally lift all Covid restrictions a month ahead of time on 24 February.

How public health could be sustained thereafter was plainly an afterthought, of little consequence to be unveiled after the recess in a document pointedly called Living with Covid. Nobody expects other than the scantest of strategies, with even the Office for National Statisticss (ONS) highly regarded surveillance survey, which allows the UK to pick up the emergence of high-risk variants, likely to be scaled back or even scrapped after April.

Any continuing requirement to self-isolate? Wear masks? Any social distancing? Working from home? Covid passports? All over. Even, it seems under Treasury pressure, free PCR testing is to be stopped for all but the most at risk. With a confidence born of Omicron proving to be much less dangerous than feared in December (helped perhaps by Britons behaving in a guarded way), the gamble not to lock down has been validated; Britain is to be the first in the world to be free of restrictions. But this was not a decision driven by public health considerations; it was rather buying the prime minister crucial political support.

Allow me to let you in on a dream I have. Im living in a country in which, after months of sacrifice, hardship and dislocation, the leaders are pulling the country together to create a new normal. Flanked by experts and supported by the encouraging data that hospital admissions are falling, with death rates falling even further for the vaccinated, we are told that, after consultation with the three nations and the leaders of the opposition parties, the entire country is going to enjoy an immediate, phased, watchful relaxation of restrictions as fast as possible. Of course, surveillance through surveys would continue as we guard against new dangerous variants and, to make it worthwhile, testing would not be scrapped but become more sparing so that those with symptoms could know whether they had Covid. The expectation would remain that people with Covid would legitimately stay at home rather than infect others, while nightclubs and sporting venues could and should ask for proof of vaccination. Masks would continue to be worn on public transport.

In this imagined country, we had come through the pandemic together and, while the new normal could never be the normal of pre-pandemic, it was still normal enough. Recognising that Covid is global, we would be actively mobilising our now surplus public health capacity to help others.

This dream is where the vast majority would love us to be. Personally, I delight in the escalating return to normality dinners, lunches with colleagues, getting out and about much more freely but I am watchful. On buses, trains and tubes, I take care to wear a mask and make sure, if I can, that I sit with others wearing them. I willingly wear a mask in shops, cinema, theatre or going around galleries. I keep my social distance. I enjoy the possibilities of Zoom, a working life organised around online slots, but saving time on travelling. If asked to take a lateral flow test before a large gathering, I happily comply. I live a life as normally as possible but remain vigilant about the danger of contracting Covid. Its how I expect to continue.

Instead, Living with Covid will be an enforced imposition of a particular conception of liberty by the dominant faction of a discredited party a fundamental misreading of public opinion and the dynamics of pandemic management.

I am like the vast majority. The modellers who warned about the potential explosive impact of Omicron were not exponents of big state socialism. Rather, they were surprised and their models caught out by the degree to which the majority of us constrained our own liberty, were watchful about contact and social interaction, partly as a result of the models alarming projected scenarios, and lived by the rules.

It was our new behaviour, as much as state rules, which drove the better-than-expected outcome. We were, in philosopher Isaiah Berlins famous formulation, practitioners of positive liberty taking control of our individual destinies through acting together. By contrast, Tory libertarians are really Big Brother imposers of Berlins negative liberty, defining liberty not in terms of individuals trying to control their life in concert with others but wholly in terms of removing what they describe as coercive state restrictions and obstacles.

Concerns about coercion might make arguable sense in some second-order walks of economic and social life objecting, say, to councils over-zealous imposition of swingeing parking fines but in public health issues negative liberty is bonkers. Big Brother removal of safeguards to my good health in the name of individual liberty so that I am free to be made seriously ill by others is as dangerous as any socialist Big Brother.

As I have argued in an earlier column, the good society fuses the claims of the we with the needs of the I. Be sure Living with Covid, informed by the bossy negative libertarians of the Tory Covid Recovery Group, will neglect the we almost entirely.

Nor is any of this made easier by chancellor Rishi Sunaks obsession with Treasury orthodoxy. The purpose of the state is the creation of public goods for which we readily pay of which the Office for National Statistics surveys of the incidence of Covid and testing are prime examples. This short-sighted, mad-dash exit from the pandemic mirrors its beginning a painful refusal to accept that human beings benefit from the group acting together, especially in matters of public health. Libertarianism is the new political virus. Immunisation from its baleful effects cannot come too soon.

Will Hutton is an Observer columnist

Read more here:

Like most, I relish life opening up. But this libertarian dash for the Covid exit is reckless - The Guardian

From the right: Team Hillarys Criminal Hacking

Special counsel John Durham just confirmed that Hillary Clintons associates illegally spied on Donald Trump to delegitimize his victory and presidency, fumes the Washington Examiners Kaylee McGhee White. Her campaign deliberately funded lawyer Michael Sussman and others to monitor Trump and his allies, even after he took office. Durhams court filing proves the campaign to undermine Trump went far beyond what many suspected: It didnt just spy on Trumps campaign but on the White House, hacking into the governments confidential servers and using pilfered info to manufacture the Russia-collusion narrative which our intelligence community then ran with. Years later, few of the people responsible have faced any consequences. Hopefully, that changes soon.

From the left: How Dems Can Win

Facing what liberals see as the Republican threat to Americas constitutional experiment, Stanley B. Greenberg asks at The American Prospect, What is our plan to save it? He says: Focus on working-class voters white, Black, Hispanic, Asian. Decades ago, he labeled defecting, unionized, ethnic Catholic suburban voters as Reagan Democrats because they felt betrayed by their traditional party. He sees the same pattern today as Dems are also losing support from working-class Blacks and Hispanics. Simply put, in the Obama years Democratic leaders stopped seeing the working class and feeling its despair and anger. Yet if Republicans continue winning working-class votes at the rate they did in Virginia [last November], Democrats have little chance.

Libertarian: Canadas Truckers Inspire the Globe

Canadas Freedom Convoy embodies fatigue with pandemic authoritarianism, cheers Reasons J.D. Tuccille. COVID-19 policies eroded liberty and many people want it back. Indeed, the shock waves of this unprecedented uprising crossed the US-Canadian border and flipped the positions Americans of the left and right take on the legitimacy of political protest and suppression of the same. More importantly, the movement cautions the political class everywhere against pushing people too far, as the Canadian truckers have inspired protests as far afield as Europe and New Zealand. People in country after country want the return of liberal norms and respect for their personal choices. Now, improbably, those protests may be coming together under a maple leaf and a #HonkHonk hashtag.

Conservative: After a No-Mask Super Bowl . . .

The Super Bowl was our unofficial return to normality, cheers National Reviews Michael Brendan Dougherty: SoFi stadium gathered over 70,000 fans for the big game, and they went almost entirely maskless. The idea that football could end a pandemic may seem absurd but cultures never make sense as pure calculations and culture decides whether we are in a state of emergency or not. The 70,000 people maskless in California will further enflame and enrage anti-maskers and add more weight to arguments that children in New York or Illinois are already at less risk . . . than any of the 70,000 adults at the Super Bowl despite being singled out for indoor mask and distancing mandates: These absurdities . . . will not stand more than a few weeks.

Republican: Black Voters Are Fleeing Biden

Black voters are fleeing President Biden in droves. And its hard to see a scenario under which they come back anytime soon, argues The Hills Joe Concha. Notably, less than 7-in-10 Black voters (69 percent) support the 46th president now, though more than 9-in-10 Black voters (92 percent) voted for him in 2020 an almost 25-point drop in a relatively short period of time. Inflation is a big reason, plus the 6.9% black unemployment rate double the white one. And crime continues to hit urban areas the hardest, with 16 cities setting homicide records in 2021. It all adds up to blacks increasingly feeling buyers remorse on Biden.

Compiled by The Post Editorial Board

See more here:

Team Hillary's criminal hacking and other commentary - New York Post