Category Archives: Libertarianism

The Supreme Court Building in Washington D.C., August 5, 2021(Brent Buterbaugh/National Review)

If youre like me, you will have enjoyed reading the legal commentary thats been published ahead of the Supreme Courts oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization on December 1. At issue in the case is Mississippis 2018 Gestational Age Act, which prohibits abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for medical emergencies and severe fetal abnormality. The scholarship on the issue both in formal amicus briefs and in longer-form essays has been richly educational. That so many constitutional-law professors, advocacy groups, and nonprofits have decided to submit their thoughts for consideration isnt surprising, given that this is perhaps the most consequential case the Court has decided to take up in decades. Mississippis law although modest and broadly popular is self-evidently incompatible with the Courts prior rulings, and therefore threatens the abortion regime thats been constructed over the past half century.

I was surprised, then, when I learned that the Cato Institute the prominent libertarian think tank in Washington, D.C., which boasts a center dedicated to the study of constitutional law has decided not to file with the Court in this case. Surprise quickly turned to confusion when I read Ilya Shapiro, the centers director, on its justification for not doing so.

Cato hasnt and wont be filing in Dobbs, as we havent in any abortion case, for three reasons: (1) libertarians in good standing span the gamut from the staunchest pro-choice to the staunchest pro-life, (2) we have nothing unique to add about what an undue burden is or how it may apply to any particular abortion regulation, and (3) while Cato lawyers may each have our own views on when rights attach see point 1 this is fundamentally a philosophical, theological, and thus ultimately political question, not a legal one.

Lets consider each reason in turn.

First, Ill take Shapiros word for it that libertarians, both at Cato and elsewhere, hold a range of views on abortion. Yet maintaining a wide range of opinions on abortion does not preclude Cato or any of its fellows from opposing Roe and Casey, which they ought to do on constitutional principle alone. Indeed, any pro-choice libertarian in good standing should advocate exactly this position. More on this below.

Next is the admission that they dont have anything unique to add about what constitutes an undue burden the standard established in Planned Parenthood v. Casey for determining whether a state restriction on abortion pre-viability is legitimate. As a constitutional matter, this is fair enough. The undue-burden standard has been sufficiently, even exhaustively, examined. Take, for example, a brilliant new essay from Mary Ann Glendon and O. Carter Snead in National Affairs. In making the case for overturning Roe and Casey, they note that the standard has been an exceedingly vague concept since its creation. The new standard, they write,

doubled down on Roes freewheeling derivation of a constitutional right based on the justices own normative balancing of competing interests: a womans interest in being free to make intimate, personal, and self-defining reproductive choices on the one hand, versus the states interests in defending the unborn, preserving the integrity of the medical profession, and promoting the respect for life more generally, on the other.

It failed, yet again, to ground the Courts abortion jurisprudence in the Constitution. As it so happens, made-up rules tend to beget more made-up rules.

Consider, too, this brief description from Chief Justice John Roberts, on the sort of balancing act that Casey demanded: There is no plausible sense in which anyone, let alone this Court, could objectively assign weight to such imponderable values and no meaningful way to compare them if there were.

So, in short, yes: Casey is well-trodden ground. To posit this as a justification for not filing in this case, however, is unpersuasive. One could write about any number of things unrelated to the undue-burden standard and, indeed, the majority of those filed in support of the state of Mississippi have done just that. But beyond this, the case itself hardly turns on whether the states law constitutes an undue burden prior to viability. Its ban with minimal exceptions at 15 weeks pretty obviously amounts to one. Mississippi does not even argue otherwise; it knows its law violates the Supreme Courtmade standard. Instead, the state put forth a wholesale stare decisis argument against Roe and Casey.

Last is the contention that rights-attachment that is, when the fetus retains the rights attendant to personhood is a philosophical, theological, and political question. Here, too, Shapiro is generally correct. (Some noteworthy conservatives such as Robert P. George and John M. Finnis disagree, advancing the notion that unborn children are constitutional persons entitled to equal protection pursuant to the 14th Amendment; in other words, it is fundamentally a legal question.)

But to maintain that this is expressly political as Cato says that it does is to have sufficient cause to support Mississippis case. That the question of when rights attach is a political matter, without any inferable language in the Constitution, supports the Courts doing away with its precedent that treats it as a constitutional matter, thereby kicking deliberation back to the states, where it belongs. Shapiros comment then is indeed a justification just not in the direction that he imagines it to run.

Finally, some also may suggest that to overturn such precedents would be dangerously political. But the opposite is true: Roe itself was the original political sin, and the Courts removing itself from that sphere would be entirely apolitical. As has been discussed in these pages and elsewhere the Courts abortion jurisprudence has no legitimate grounding in the Constitution. Roe, in the words of pro-choice legal scholar John Hart Ely, was not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be. Its hardly political, then, for the Court to correct a serious mistake that has caused significant negative jurisprudential and real-world consequences. To do so, in fact, would arguably enhance its legitimacy and restore its proper place in our constitutional order.

The opportunity before the justices is grand. So, too, is the one before the Cato Institute. Its unfortunate that Cato has chosen to sit it out and doubly so, that this is its reasoning for doing so. The Court must fight the temptation to do likewise.

See original here:
Cato and the Court - National Review

Utilising reactionary anti-lockdown and anti-vaccine rallies in Melbourne organised this week, police forces have unveiled an array of new weapons and equipment. This includes pepper ball firearms that shoot hard pellets the size of marbles, stinger grenades, and paramilitary-style vehicles and body armour.

As the World Socialist Web Site has previously outlined, the anti-vax protests have no legitimacy whatsoever. A small layer of construction workers appear to have been involved in one of the rallies on Tuesday outside the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) office (see Australian anti-vaccine, extreme right demonstrators target construction industry). Numbers of reports, however, point to the predominantly petty bourgeois layers involved in the other events, including small business owners and contractors.

Politically, the rallies are dominated and led by extreme right-wing libertarian and outright fascist individuals and organisations. Some of the administrators of Telegram accounts promoting and organising the protests have previously been exposed as admirers of Adolf Hitler. Supporters of the fascistic Proud Boys and the now defunct United Patriots Front have been involved in the rallies.

The police are exploiting widespread hostility towards the protests and their homicidal calls for an immediate end to lockdown measures as the pretext for trialling new weaponry and a massive state mobilisation.

Senior police previously expressed concern over how the population would respond to the use of new, so-called non-lethal weaponry.

In 2018, police put on a display of their enhanced firepower for selected journalists. The weapons included VKS Pepper Ball firearms, capable of firing blunt force pellets or dye markers to brand people for later arrest, baton round launchers capable of firing larger rubber or plastic bullets, stinger grenades that release nine rubber projectiles, and sound/flash bombs that release noise, light and smoke. This was accompanied by new body armour and paramilitary-style police vehicles.

An Age journalist noted at the time, we have been given a sneak preview of gear that looks more like Star Wars than regulation police equipment.

Police Chief Commissioner Graham Ashton declared: It is an ugly look to see police in riot gear in a suburban street. It will be confronting to watch. We now have some equipment that has not been seen before that may alarm people.

The Melbourne Activist Legal Support noted that the new weapons posed severe dangers.

Pepper Ball pellets, the organisation reported, can blind, maim and leave permanent injuries depending where they hit the body, while the baton round launcher has resulted in significant injuries and fatalities around the world, [including last year] a 25-year-old protester [who] was killed by a rubber bullet in Paraguay. In addition: The flash/noise distraction grenades designed to shock and disperse crowds are routinely being used in Israel/Palestine and other conflict zones and have maimed children, can burst ear drums and generate dangerous fear and panic in crowds.

For three years, this equipment has gone unused. Now, however, the anti-vaxxer rallies have provided the police with the hoped-for pretext.

The real target of the repressive build-up is not the extreme rightmany of the fascists enjoy close relations with sections of sympathising policebut the working class.

The state Labor governments bolstering of police powers and weaponry has always been driven by the fear of social unrest and working class and youth protest, fuelled by escalating social inequality and attacks on living standards and democratic rights. Labor Premier Daniel Andrews has boasted of his law and order credentials. In 2016, his state government committed an unprecedented $2 billion in additional spending to expand the police by 20 percent, with 3,100 more officers employed. The government has since boasted that its annual police spending is 35 percent higher than its Liberal predecessor.

The police operations against the anti-vax events represent a warning as to how the state is preparing to respond to a genuine movement of the working class in defence of its independent interests.

Numerous acts of police violence were recorded by witnesses and uploaded to social media. This included the gratuitous use of pepper spray on already restrained people, indiscriminate firing of plastic pellets, and one incident in which a person speaking with officers at Flinders train station was grabbed from behind by another cop without warning and body and head slammed into the concrete floor.

In another incident, a passer-by who was not involved in the right-wing protests recorded three masked men wearing khaki-coloured armour emerge from an unmarked car and aggressively force a person to the ground. These were members of the Special Operations Group police branch, an elite unit usually reserved for counter-terrorist responses and incidents involving firearms or explosives.

The confrontation recalled the police-state operations coordinated by US President Donald Trump in the final weeks of his presidency, including having unidentified police in Portland hauling protestors into unmarked vans for interrogation.

In another precedent-setting move, on Wednesday the police had the Civil Aviation Safety Authority declare central Melbourne a no-fly zone. This aimed at preventing the broadcast of aerial footage of the anti-vax rallies. Police later permitted overhead media coverage, but insisted that video broadcasts from helicopters be delayed by at least an hour so that live police operations were not visible to protestors. The ban on live overhead coverage was subsequently overturned by the Federal Court.

Sign up for the WSWS email newsletter

Go here to read the rest:
Australian police exploit extreme right-wing, anti-vax rallies to deploy new repressive weaponry - WSWS

I am back living in England, and Ill probably catch Covid. Theres a sense of inevitability to it. While the British government would never admit to pursuing herd immunity, the reality on the ground is fairly unambiguous.

Too many of my friends and comedy colleagues have become infected since Freedom Day, inJuly, and have reported varying levels of illness. I spoke to a comic in Hull who suffered from brain fog for months after his diagnosis. He told me how he found himself standing on stage in front of packed audiences, blanking on his own punchlines. Id really rather not catch it.

Ireland was a comforting spot to retreat to when the pandemic was at its zenith, but as the world opened back upI had a frustrating feeling that home had been too strict for too long. England has undoubtedly been at the other end of the spectrum. My first weekend back in London felt like an alternative reality, one where masks were optional and venues were heaving. Theres been a sense that the pandemic is over, that everyone hasmoved on.

Englands race towards easing restrictions has got as much to do with its national character as with its early vaccine triumph. The English are rogues in a way we Irish only imagine ourselves to be. A virulent strain of libertarianism influences all aspects of life here. As we discovered with Brexit, the notional idea of freedom is often prized as an end in itself, even if it has negative consequences.

This fetishisation of liberty at the expense of other values has played itself out again during the pandemic, with tragic consequences. When asked last year why Britains infection rates were higher than those in the rest of Europe, Britains prime minister,Boris Johnson, explained that his was a freedom-loving country.

He might have had a point. A Eurobarometer survey in 2017 found that Irish and British people were the most individualistic in Europe:most respondents in both countries said they would prefer that society be based more on individualism than solidarity. Despite this, the two nations have largely responded to the pandemic very differently, with Ireland applying a longer and harsher lockdown than anywhere else in Europe.

A preoccupation with personal liberty isnt necessarily a bad thing, of course. Ive always found the English to be largely laid back and open-minded. Irish people have migrated to the UK for generations in search of both economic and personal opportunities. Even Tnaiste Leo Varadkar flew to London and attended a festival in September. Similar events were banned at home, and he obviously needed to blow off some steam. The English, broadly speaking, will let you get on with things.

Englands decision to lift all restrictions while the Delta variant was still surging is a little more explicable in this context. But it is also worth considering the terrible example set by its most senior politicians. Most countries have had examples of government officials breaking their own rules, but the UK has been a world beater.

The hypocrisy reached its nadir when it emerged that Matt Hancock, the former secretary of state for health who effectively imposed a sex ban on the nations single people, had breached guidelines to conduct an extramarital affair. Public morale reached a new low, and continued Covid regulations became untenable. There was a sense of people having just given up.

Ultimate responsibility for the UKs coronavirus debacle lies with its prime minister. No public figure better embodies the countrys jolly libertarianism than him. With the dark days of 2020 now behind him, Johnson seems to be having a bit of a laugh again. He even joked to party colleagues that the early success of his governments vaccine rollout was because of capitalism, because of greed, my friends. Theres truth in jest.

While the Gordon Gecko school of public service may have endeared him to pharmaceutical companies, the broader public-health outcomes for the UK have been more mixed. Britain has reported the highest death rate from Covid-19 anywhere in Europe, and with hospital numbers surging againthere is concern that an October firebreak lockdown could be on the cards.

Johnsons government should certainly take credit for its vaccine triumph at the beginning of the year, but it must also take the blame for its failure to capitalise on its head start and for the Delta variant to spread as easily as it has.

Wearing a mask is not a political statement. Using a condom does not make you a communist. The benefits of mask wearing, social distancing and vaccine certificates while a highly transmissible airborne virus is still in circulation should be obvious. Coronavirus deaths in the UK are now hitting about 1,000 a week, and its not even winter.

If all of this leads to another lockdown, then dropping all restrictions will have made Britain less free, not more so. The British government would have you believe that all responsibility lies with the individual. The reality is that we are being governed by a cabal of ageing frat boys, and their decisions are making people sick.

Peter Flanagan left Ireland in 2016 to perform stand-up comedy in London. He has worked as a writer and comedian in Britain and Europe

If you live overseas and would like to share your experience with Irish Times Abroad, email abroad@irishtimes.com with a little information about you and what you do

Visit link:
The English are rogues in a way we Irish only imagine ourselves to be - The Irish Times

ALEXANDER SALTER| Lubbock Avalanche-Journal

In a democracy, public policy rests on the consent of the governed. The great economist James Buchanan, who won the Nobel Prize in 1986, wrote that the status quo matters in a democracy because its from that point--wherever we happen to be--that the conversation about policy change begins. Our starting point, here and now, is the U.S. Constitution: its text, duly ratified amendments, and judicially interpreted meaning.

For lovers of liberty, the Constitution is an impressive document. Although lacking in some ways compared to the Articles of Confederation, our current national charter has the clear benefit of durability. The Constitution has been the basic law of the land for 232 years. Many of those years were prosperous. Some were tumultuous and destructive. The Constitution endured it all. It provides the basic backdrop of order against which liberty finds its meaning.

Libertarians like me admire the Constitution. We just wish our fellow citizens admired it as much as we do! While the Constitution isnt a fully libertarian document, its arguably the most pro-freedom compact in existence. When libertarians have a problem with the Constitution, its usually because too many politicians, bureaucrats, and sadly even voters ignore parts of the text they dont like.

The ways in which the Constitution protects freedom are obvious. Separation of powers and checks and balances are built into our governance system. This makes it incredibly difficult for political coalitions to seize absolute control of the government. And even if they do, the Bill of Rights, buttressed by the courts, stand guard over the citizenry. We Americans cherish our rights to speak freely, assemble freely, worship freely. We take pride in our protections against arbitrary seizure of property. And we know that these rights are natural rights, given to us by God. The Constitution recognizes them, but does not establish them.

In fact, the 9th Amendment explicitly says this: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. In other words, the rights of the people are far too numerous to list. Just because the Framers didnt write down a specific right doesnt mean we dont have that right. The Constitution is meant to limit the government, not the citizens.

Another support for liberty is the 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. While libertarians lament the omission of the word expressly from this amendment, its nonetheless a demonstration of the Founders fondness for federalism. That government which governs best governs closest to the citizens themselves.

What parts of the Constitution do libertarians dislike? There are a few: the Necessary and Proper Clause, the Commerce Clause, and an unlimited power of taxation are the most obvious cases. The Necessary and Proper Clause, unless carefully interpreted, could easily result in an almost-unlimited federal government. Likewise, the Commerce Clause has been used to justify federal meddling in any situation which could conceivably--not even actually!--affect trade across the United States. The lack of strict controls on the taxing power has resulted in tax rates that are downright confiscatory. All of these yield a government that is too big, too intrusive, and too powerful.

But we oughtnt throw the baby out with the bathwater. The Constitution remains a respectable governance framework for a free and virtuous people. We can work within the Constitutional system to preserve its strengths and shore up its weaknesses. Unfortunately, the greatest obstacle to Constitutional renewal is the mass of politicians who are sworn to uphold it.

Republicans and Democrats are quick to praise the Constitution on the campaign trail or at a fundraiser. But when it comes to governing, their policies are a Constitutional disgrace. One is reminded of the prophecy of Isaiah: These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. The sad reality is that government-run-amok is a bipartisan consensus. No party believes in keeping Washington, DC within the bounds of the Constitution. Many libertarians became libertarian because theyve had enough of our political duopolys two-step between Constitutional rhetoric and un-Constitutional policy.

The Constitution isnt perfect. No governing document is. But thanks to the Constitution, life, liberty, and property have been reasonably secure in the United States for more than two centuries. Libertarians seek to rein in the federal government by forcing it to follow the law of the land. While we can be reformist in our political programs, we must be radical in our aims.

American exceptionalism comes down to the rule of law: the idea that governed and governors alike must play by the same rules. Libertarians demand, as a matter of natural right, nothing less than the restoration of the rule of law. A crucial first step is to reinstate Constitutional constraints on government. Any other way of governing is profoundly un-American.

Alexander William Salter is the Georgie G. Snyder Associate Professor of Economics in the Rawls College of Business at Texas Tech University and the Comparative Economics Research Fellow at TTUs Free Market Institute.

Read the original here:
Salter: The constitution and the concept of liberty - LubbockOnline.com

Jailed Kremlin critic Alexei Navalnys allies are accusing YouTube and Telegram of censorship after the video platform and messaging app restricted access to their anti-government voting recommendations for Russias parliamentary election.

The latest accusations came on Saturday, one day after Navalnys allies had already accused Alphabets Google and Apple of buckling under Kremlin pressure after the companies removed an app from their stores that the activists had hoped to use against the ruling party in the election.

Voting began on Friday and ran until late on Sunday.

Telegram, the social media platform used by protesters from Iran to Belarus, blocked a smart voting channel aimed at defeating ruling party nominees, which carried recommendations for candidates in Russias parliamentary elections.

The app gives detailed recommendations on who to vote for in an effort to challenge the party that backs President Vladimir Putin. It is one of the few levers Navalnys allies have left after a sweeping crackdown this year.

Telegrams founder Pavel Durov, who has carved out a libertarian image and resisted past censorship, said the platform would block election campaign services, including one used by Navalnys allies to give voter recommendations.

He said the decision had been taken because of a Russian ban on campaigning once polls are open, which he considered legitimate and is similar to bans in many other countries.

Navalnys spokeswoman Kira Yarmysh condemned the move.

Its a real disgrace when the censorship is imposed by private companies that allegedly defend the ideas of freedom, she wrote on Twitter.

Ivan Zhdanov, a political ally of Navalny, said he did not believe Telegrams justification and that the move looked to have been agreed somehow with Russias authorities.

Late on Saturday, Navalnys camp said YouTube had also taken down one of their videos that contained the names of 225 candidates they endorsed.

The video presentation of the smart voting recommendations for the constituencies with the nastiest (United Russia candidates) has also been removed, they wrote.

Navalnys camp said it was not a knockout blow as their voting recommendations were available elsewhere on social media.

But it is seen as a possible milestone in Russias crackdown on the internet and its standoff with US tech firms.

Russia has for years sought sovereignty over its part of the internet, where anti-Kremlin politicians have followings and media critical of Putin operate.

Navalnys team uses Googles YouTube widely to air anti-corruption videos and to stream coverage and commentary of anti-Kremlin protests they have staged.

Russias ruling United Russia party, which supports President Vladimir Putin, retained its parliamentary majority although its performance was slightly weaker than at the last parliamentary election in 2016 andfollows the biggest crackdown on the Kremlins domestic opponents in years.

The Navalny teams Telegram feed continued to function normally on Saturday and included links to voter recommendations available in Russia via Google Docs.

On a separate Telegram feed also used by the team, activists said Russia had told Google to remove the recommendations in Google Docs and that the US company had, in turn, asked Navalnys team to take them down.

Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Reuters news agency.

In his statement, Durov said Google and Apples restrictions of the Navalny app had set a dangerous precedent and meant Telegram, which is widely used in Russia, was more vulnerable to government pressure.

He said Telegram depends on Apple and Google to operate because of their dominant position in the mobile operating system market and his platform would not have been able to resist a Russian ban from 2018 to 2020 without them.

Russia tried to block Telegram in April 2018 but lifted the ban more than two years later after ostensibly failing to block it.

The app block by Apple and Google creates a dangerous precedent that will affect freedom of expression in Russia and the whole world, Durov said in a post on Telegram.

Visit link:
Navalny allies accuse Telegram and other platforms of censorship - Al Jazeera English

After Edward J. Snowdens leaks in 2013 disclosed that the court had authorized the bulk collection of logs of all Americans phone calls and emails under the USA Patriot Act, Congress passed a new law, the USA Freedom Act of 2015. Among other things, it required executive branch officials to make public, to the greatest extent practicable, decisions from the intelligence court that included significant legal determinations.

Critics say that is not enough, for two basic reasons. Under separation-of-powers principles, they say, courts rather than the executive branch should decide whether judicial opinions ought to be made public. And the 2015 law, at least according to the executive branch, does not apply to decisions issued before its enactment.

The A.C.L.U. filed a motion in the FISA court, seeking disclosure of major decisions issued between the Sept. 11 attacks and the 2015 law and arguing that the FISA court itself should decide whether disclosure of its decisions was required by the First Amendment.

These court opinions are vitally important, said Patrick Toomey, a lawyer with the A.C.L.U. They can have far-reaching consequence for Americans privacy and free expression rights. It shouldnt be up to the executive branch whether the public has access to them.

A specialized appeals court ruled last year that the FISA court lacked the power even to consider whether there is a right of access to its decisions under the First Amendment. Though other federal courts routinely consider requests to unseal their own records, the appeals court ruled that the FISA court could not consider the constitutional question before it because Congress had not granted it the power to do so.

The jurisdictional issues in the case are tangled, but the larger questions it presents are not.

In a supporting brief, former government officials including James Clapper, a former director of national intelligence, and John Brennan, a former C.I.A. director wrote that excessive secrecy can result in indiscriminate and destructive leaking.

Too much secrecy, in other words, they wrote, puts at risk the very intelligence operations that require secrecy to be effective.

Read more:
At the Supreme Court, a Plea to Reveal Secret Surveillance Rulings - The New York Times

By Tom Balmforth

MOSCOW, Sept 18 (Reuters) - Allies of jailed Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny accused Telegram of censorship on Saturday after the popular messaging app followed Google and Apple in restricting access to their voting campaign in Russia's parliamentary election.

The activists have already accused Alphabet's Google and Apple of buckling under Kremlin pressure after they removed an app from their stores that Navalny's allies had hoped to use against the ruling party at the election.

The app gives detailed recommendations on who to vote for in an effort to challenge the party that backs President Vladimir Putin. It is one of the few levers Navalny's allies have left after a sweeping crackdown this year.

Telegram's founder Pavel Durov, who has carved out a libertarian image and resisted past censorship, said the platform would block election campaign services, including one used by Navalny's allies to give voter recommendations.

He said the decision had been taken because of a Russian ban on campaigning once polls are open, which he considered legitimate and is similar to bans in many other countries.

Navalny's spokeswoman Kira Yarmysh condemned the move.

"It's a real disgrace when the censorship is imposed by private companies that allegedly defend the ideas of freedom," she wrote on Twitter.

Ivan Zhdanov, a political ally of Navalny, said he did not believe Telegram's justification and that the move looked to have been agreed somehow with Russia's authorities.

Navalny's camp said it was not a knockout blow as their voting recommendations were available elsewhere on social media.

But it is seen as a possible milestone in Russia's crackdown on the internet and its standoff with U.S. tech firms.

Russia has for years sought sovereignty over its part of the internet, where anti-Kremlin politicians have followings and media critical of Putin operate.

'DANGEROUS PRECEDENT'

Story continues

The ruling United Russia Party is still widely expected to win the election despite a ratings slump. The voting, which opened on Friday and runs through Sunday, follows the biggest crackdown on the Kremlin's domestic opponents in years.

The Navalny team's Telegram feed continued to function normally on Saturday, and included links to voter recommendations available in Russia via Google Docs.

On a separate Telegram feed also used by the team, activists said Russia had told Google to remove the recommendations in Google Docs and that the U.S. company had in turn asked Navalny's team to take them down.

Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In his statement, Durov said Google and Apple's restrictions of the Navalny app had set a dangerous precedent and meant Telegram, which is widely used in Russia, was more vulnerable to government pressure.

He said Telegram depends on Apple and Google to operate because of their dominant position in the mobile operating system market and his platform would not have been able to resist a Russian ban from 2018 to 2020 without them.

Russia tried to block Telegram in April 2018 but lifted the ban more than two years later after ostensibly failing to block it.

"The app block by Apple and Google creates a dangerous precedent that will affect freedom of expression in Russia and the whole world," Durov said in a post on Telegram. (Reporting by Tom Balmforth; Additional reporting by Anton Zverev and Alexander Marrow; Editing by David Clarke)

Continue reading here:
Navalny allies accuse Telegram of censorship in Russian election - Yahoo Finance

Mark Braiman, of Cazenovia, is treasurer of Madison County Libertarians.

Here is a sure-fire recipe for short-circuiting the open redistricting process New York voters demanded with a 2014 constitutional amendment. Start with a shift of New Yorks primaries from September to June; add a pandemic that delayed 2020 Census results by several months; and toss into the mix a partisan deadlock on the Independent Redistricting Commission. With the process now under extreme time pressure, the unforeseen consequence will likely be the states three top state politicians sitting in a room somewhere to doodle out the final maps a few days before legislative approval; or else a federal court doing it all on its own, without any input from the states politicians or voters.

New York Democrats feel an urgent need to engage in pre-emptive gerrymandering to counter what will happen in red states. This is unappealing behavior but seems inevitable. I am nevertheless greatly irritated that this national gerrymandering war impacts me directly, in the form of the Democratic IRC members proposed sea-serpent-shaped Central New York district extending from Tompkins County to Utica, with a neck through northern Madison County. This would be the first time in its 215-year history for Madison County to be divided between Congressional districts. My home is so close to the obnoxiously arbitrary boundary, it will take a lot of scrutiny before I can discern which side I live on.

Forcing incumbent Republican Reps. John Katko and Claudia Tenney into the same district could be accomplished without dividing my county or any county at all. The combined 2020 populations of Onondaga, Madison and Oneida counties is 776,657. This is almost exactly the ideal district size of 776,971 (1/26 of the state population). Drawing a new congressional district from just these three counties would satisfy the Democrats urge to force Tenney (Oneida County) and Katko (Onondaga County) to compete against each other, without dismembering Madison or other counties. This can furthermore be done without forcing any other anomalies in the surrounding districts, as can be mathematically proven. (See map for Upstate Congressional Districts that I have just proposed to the IRC at MarkBraiman.com). This map keeps every NY county undivided between Congressional districts, excepting of course the nine over 776,971 in size.

The Democrats on the IRC have also proposed obscenely gerrymandered New York Senate districts for Madison and Onondaga Counties. In their map, Madison is one of the few lucky small Upstate counties that escapes being divided into multiple Senate districts. However, it is once again thrown in with a motley collection of barely contiguous Onondaga County towns, henceforth to bear the appearance of a grotesque bobcat, curled almost all the way around the city of Syracuse in an act of animalistic self-grooming.

Speaking of animalistic behavior, the Republican members of the IRC have responded with a map that is just as obnoxiously partisan, despite featuring much simpler-shaped state Senate districts for Madison and Onondaga Counties. Their map takes Madison County entirely out of Sen. Rachel Mays Syracuse district entirely reasonable but puts her and fellow incumbent Democratic Sen. John Mannion into a single elongated district not so reasonable. In the process, the Republicans propose to split Onondaga County into four distinct Senate districts. None of these are contained entirely within Onondaga County, despite it having a population 1.5 times the ideal State Senate district size of 320,655. Could the two nonpartisan members of the IRC have the integrity to stand up and say, A plague on both your houses!?

In sum, both Democratic and Republican wings of the IRC have put raw partisan self-interests over the reasonable and constitutionally mandated goal of keeping small counties intact wherever possible. The New York Constitution, Article IV, section 4, paragraph (c)(6) states clearly: The requirements that senate districts not divide counties or towns ... shall remain in effect. These requirements have been part of our state Constitution for nearly 250 years, but over the past half-century have increasingly been breached for partisan purposes.

Dividing smaller Upstate counties between multiple congressional and legislative districts puts unnecessary burdens on voters, to figure out what races they are voting in. It thereby alienates us further from the electoral process. It also burdens these small counties Boards of Elections, by unnecessarily increasing the number of races they have to count.

More important, the ongoing violation of constitutional districting provisions since the 1970s has weakened the voices of local leaders in state government. It has likely contributed to the growth of state mandates on counties and other local governments, for example the requirement for counties to fund Medicaid using property taxes.

Whatever the need may be to divide large Downstate New York counties and cities among multiple districts in order to keep these districts nearly equal in size, this need is not present for smaller Upstate jurisdictions, as my math shows. This keeps every Upstate city, village, and town undivided , as well as all 49 of the counties with a 2020 population under 320,655. It also follows another key precept of fairness to all counties, by guaranteeing each of the other six larger counties north of New York City (including Onondaga) at least one core Senate district entirely within the county. It even manages to do all this without forcing Sens. May and Mannion, who live barely five miles apart, into the same Senate district.

Also in Opinion: Editorial cartoons for Sept. 19, 2021: Gen. Milleys back channel, Bidens Covid mandate, California recall

Read the original post:
NY redistricting commissions obscenely partisan maps defy will of voters (Guest Opinion by Mark Braiman) - syracuse.com

The House Democrats released their tax proposal with big headlines about increasing taxes on the rich and big corporations. But if you have read my articles before, you know I care less about big corporations and more about small businesses. Where do they fit in to the tax code changes? Is tax reform good or bad for them? Some small businesses will benefit from the proposed changes. Here's who wins and loses with this new tax proposal:

The Winners: Small corporations earning less than $5 million

Currently corporations are federally taxed at a flat rate of 21% of adjusted net income. The proposal in the house would create three new tax brackets for corporations:

Small corporations earning less than $5 million per year in income will actually experience a tax decrease in this proposal, saving up to $12k in tax expense. Not huge, but not bad.

Small businesses competing against foreign companies

Substantial portions of the tax reform package seek to close loopholes or deductions taken by foreign entities or domestic entities paying foreign taxes. Small businesses who cannot afford the scale or reach of international operations will benefit from a leveling of the playing field as they compete with foreign entities facing larger tax burdens.

Anyone waiting for the IRS

The proposal includes $79 billion of additional IRS funding for enforcement of new provisions. That is more than a 6x increase over the 2021 budget!

While entrepreneurs and libertarians generally cringe at the idea of more IRS bureaucrats issuing audits and investigating tax filings, there is a downside to our currently low IRS staffing: slow responses, terrible customer service, and delayed tax refunds.

Accounting departments nationwide have been struggling to file basic and time-sensitive forms like change in entity tax elections, often going 10+ months without confirmation or response from the IRS. It is all but impossible to contact IRS customer service now, with their 800-number automatically hanging up on callers after 3-hours on hold. The worst part is most small businesses are still awaiting their 2020 income tax returns five months after filing.

The hope is extra IRS funding means more staff to process refunds, filings, and business negotiations faster.

The Losers of Tax Reform

In general, the more profit you earn the more you stand to lose from tax reform. Here's a list of the losers in the current tax proposal in the house:

Corporations earning more than $5 million per year

High income corporations are facing a new income bracket of 26.5%. In fact, if you earn more than $10 million per year, you will have ALL your income taxed at 26.5% rather than just incremental income.

Pass-through entities earning more than $400k per year

High income S-corps, partnerships, and sole proprietors are facing three headwinds in the tax reforms. The top-tax bracket for personal income taxes (which affects pass-through entities like partnerships, S-corps, and sole proprietors) will be increased from 37% to 39.6%.

Second, the threshold for this tax bracket will be lowered, meaning a new set of earners will suddenly qualify for the top tax bracket. The new bracket limit for individuals will be $400k (down from $523k) and $450k (down fro $628k) for married filing jointly.

Lastly, high income pass-through entities will be disqualified from the Qualified Business Income Deduction. The QBID (commonly known as the pass-through tax deduction) is a deduction worth up to 20% of your income. However, the rules for QBID are complex and include phase-outs for businesses with higher income, business activity, or even what year it is. It is difficult to know how much your business benefited from the QBID without reviewing your tax return.

The proposed tax reform eliminated the QBDI for anyone earning more than $500k/yr. jointly or $400k/yr. for a single individual. Consult with your fractional CFO or CPA to determine whether or not this would affect you.

Owners that sell businesses or business assets

The highest long-term capital gains tax rate (which applies to most businesses) would rise from 20% to 25%. This has a large impact on businesses that buy and sell appreciating assets like real estate, collectables, stocks, or even your business itself.

In fact, the most popular way to avoid paying capital gains taxes, known as section 1202, is also weakened in the proposed tax reforms. The gains exclusion would drop from 100% to 50%, creating up to $5 million per year in additional capital gains taxes per transaction.Individuals with lots of money in retirement accounts

The new tax legislation seeks to limit the use of qualified retirement accounts, like IRAs and Roth IRA's, based on the total amount of money someone has in such accounts.

Overall Impact of Tax Changes on Small Businesses

The Biden administration and House Democrats have successfully targeted high-income corporations and business owners in these reforms. Although there are some benefits in the legislation, in aggregate, The House's proposed tax changes would be a burden on high income small businesses.

These terms are being actively negotiated in congress, so do not get too excited. There is still a chance that none of it will happen. Here's my recommendation to small business owners facing the prospect of high tax liabilities:

In reality, most small businesses will not change anything in light of the new tax structure. There are dozens of business elements more impactful on cash flow than your tax strategy - sales and marketing strategy, operations strategy, pricing strategy, exit strategy... As much as we wish we had a fleet of corporate accountants to find every tax loophole, that is not economically realistic for small businesses. Do your diligence, collaborate with your financial team, but always stay focused on fundamentals to ensure success.

The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com.

View original post here:
What the Proposed Tax Deal Means for Your Business - Inc.

|

Former WWE Superstar turned Mayor of Knox County, Tennessee, Kane, may have once been a stooge for The Authority of Triple H and Stephanie McMahon, but when it comes to a Democratic president, it's another story. Mayor Kane unleashed hellfire and brimstone on President Joe Biden, rival of Mayor Kane's fellow WWE Hall of Famer former president Donald Trump, over Biden's COVID-19 vaccine mandates. According to The Big Red Machine, Knox County Tennesee will not comply with the federal rules.

Mayor Kane tweeted:

He added:

In the letter, Mayor Kane accuses Biden of violating the Constitution with the order. "Mr. President, if we as elected officials ignore, disregard, and contravene the laws which bind us, how can we expect our fellow citizens to respect and follow the laws which bind all of us as a society?" asked The Devil's Favorite Demon while vowing to ignore, disregard, and contravene Biden's executive order.Mayor Kane also went on to take President Biden to task for the war in Afghanistan, which makes sense, since the only time Kane thinks Americans should travel to the Middle East is when they're teaming with The Undertaker to battle Triple H and Shawn Michaels in front of the Saudi Royal Family.

Under the leadership of Mayor Kane, the only Libertarian political figure to receive the endorsements of both Senator Rand Paul and Bryan Danielson, Knox County is currently experiencing a coronavirus inspection spike higher than at any other time during the pandemic, which is no surprise, considering Mayor Kane opposes pretty much every effort to stem the disease's spread. Kane has previously complained about bans on large gatherings after it prevented him from speaking at an event known as the Juggalo Gathering for Libertarians. Kane was later forced to apologize to Knox County's own Board of Health after cutting a shoot promo on them over coronavirus safety protocols. Later, it was reported that 975 COVID-19 vaccines went missing under Mayor Kane's regime, though it was later found that the vaccines were accidentally thrown in the trash and not, as originally reported, stolen.

View original post here:
WWE Mayor Kane Defies Authority, Will Not Comply with Vaccine Mandate - Bleeding Cool News