Category Archives: Libertarianism

Republican 13th District Congressman Ted Budd has announced he is running for the open US Senate seat in 2022.

Budd made his announcement in a video released on Wednesday, April 28, which you can view here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0gnXHPArcQ

When Budd was first elected to Congress in 2016, the 13th District split Guilford County with the 6th Congressional District, which at the time was represented by Congressman Mark Walker who didnt run for reelection in 2020 and announced he was running for the Senate on Dec. 1, 2020.

In 2020, the 13th Congressional District was redrawn and Budd, who lives in Davie County, no longer represents any of Guilford County, and by running for the Senate he will have to give up his seat in Congress at the end of this term in 2022.

Budds announcement video starts off with monster trucks, a guy with a bullhorn and a dog in goggles. But mostly it is Budd talking about why he is running for the Senate, with a drive-in movie screen behind him depicting images that go along with the speech.

Budd leaves no doubt about where he stands on President Donald Trump and displays three separate clips of Trump at rallies in North Carolina talking about the good job Budd has done.

Budd says, Today the US Senate is the last line of defense against the becoming a woke, socialist wasteland and Im running to stop that period.

Budd begins the video saying, Im a small businessman who was so fed up with the liberals attacks on our faith, our families and our way of life that I ran for Congress to stand and fight beside Donald Trump to drain the swamp and take our country back.

Budd adds, Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are shredding our Constitution, creating an unprecedented crisis at the southern border, cutting American jobs and mortgaging our childrens future with massive debts. My core beliefs come from being raised in Davie County. Im 100 percent pro life and I even think that elections should be fair and secure.

He also says, Ive shoveled a lot of manure on my familys farm and its not the dirtiest job Ive ever had now that Ive been to Congress.

Budd also notes that since he owns a gun shop, people know where he stands on the Second Amendment.

Along with Walker, former North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory has announced his candidacy for the Senate seat. Jen Banwart, who has said he doesnt plan to raise any money, has also announced he is running in the Republican primary.

More here:
Ted Budd Officially Entering 2022 NC Senate Race - The Rhino Times of Greensboro - The Rhino TImes

INDIANAPOLIS Indiana's top elections official has acknowledged violating state political fundraising rules with the launch of her 2022 election campaign.

Republican Secretary of State Holli Sullivan requested contributions as she announced her campaign Monday five days earlier than allowed under changes to state law signed by Gov. Eric Holcomb that day.

Sullivan, who was appointed secretary of state by Holcomb in March and is vice chair of the Indiana Republican Party, said she was seeking a full four-year term to defend the integrity of Indiana's elections.

State law prohibits candidates for state offices from fundraising during the legislative sessions when the two-year state budget is drafted. Lawmakers extended their meeting deadline from the typical April 29 until November so they can return to approve new election districts.

The Committee to Elect Holli Sullivan has determined that it made an improper solicitation of campaign funds, Sullivan's campaign said in a statement. These public solicitations have been removed and all contributions have been returned.

State Libertarian Party Chairman Evan McMahon said If you are vying to be elected to head the office that oversees elections and enforces campaign finance laws it would probably be a good idea to not break those laws.

Read the original post:
Elections official admits breaking rule | Indiana | Journal Gazette - Fort Wayne Journal Gazette

EAU CLAIRE (WQOW) - The Libertarian Party of Wisconsin met in Eau Claire on Saturday for their annual convention.

A hundred people gathered in the Lismore's Wilson Hall to discuss the future of their political party. Member Anna Bughman said they voted on changes to their constitution and bylaw, and what direction they want their party to go in. They also discussed ways to grow their party and held officer elections.

Bughman described Libertarianism as the party of liberty and individual rights, adding about half the people at Saturday's convention were new members of Wisconsin's Libertarian Party.

Here, today, it looks like a lot of new people, a lot who are becoming educated and excited to go out in their communities and talk about why your individual rights matter," she said.

Speakers at Saturday's convention included 2020 presidential candidate Jo Jorgensen and her vice presidential candidate Spike Cohen. Cohen spoke about how it felt for his name and party to have appeared on the ballot in all 50 states last November.

"The libertarian party and other third parties have to fight very very hard, spend countless hours of time getting petitions signed, they have to spend millions of dollars in lawsuits and fights with the state boards of election to get on the ballot," Cohen said.

"It's a hard-fought battle for us to even give Americans another choice besides the same "Republi-crats" they always have to vote for."

Eau Claire is not always the host of this convention, as the party chooses a new host city every year.

See the original post:
Libertarian Party of Wisconsin holds annual convention in Eau Claire - WQOW TV News 18

To the editor:

Bill Maher has long been a lonely voice of reason in American pop culture, a left-leaning but principled libertarian, and a victim himself of cancel culture from ABC back in 2002 before we even called it that.

Once again, he is that voice among a din of partisan hackery and coopted science," throwing elbows at both parties in a recent episode of Real Time (as "Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher" has been rebranded and known on HBO since 2002).

"When all of our sources for medical information have an agenda to spin us, yeah, you wind up with a badly misinformed population, including on the left," Maher told viewers. "Liberals often mock the Republican misinformation bubble, which is a real thing, but what about liberals? You know, the high-information, by-the-science people?"

So almost 70% of Democrats are wildly off on the fundamental question of how many cases of COVID lead to hospitalization; 1-5% is the correct answer; 28% of Democrats polled said 20-49%; 41% of Democrats think 50% or more cases of COVID lead to hospitalizations - a margin of error of 1,000%.

"(Democrats) also have a greatly exaggerated view of the danger of COVID to and the mortality rate among children, all of which explains why today the states with the highest share of schools that are still closed are all blue states," Maher continued. "So if the right-wing media bubble has to own things like climate change denial, shouldn't liberal media have to answer for, 'How did your audience wind up believing such bunch of crap about COVID?'"

Maher ended with a parting shot at the now far-left Atlantics constant beach-shaming "even though it's increasingly looking like the beach is the best place to avoid (COVID), and pointed out how Florida Gov. Rick DeSantis apparently reads books and got COVID right while the lionized Democrat governor of New York is taking time off from his victory lap book tour on COVID leadership to be federally investigated for malfeasance in managing the pandemic in his state.

So, just a friendly reminder to my fellow Americans: When politics go off the rails in America - and this is not the first time they have nor will it be the last - bend your ear toward us nominally partisan Libertarians and carry on.

Nick McNulty

Windham

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

Read the original here:
Letter: Calling out the misinformed, on the right and left, about COVID-19 - Eagle-Tribune

After a rollercoaster few days its coming home. The chicken, that is. To roost.

It was announced at the weekend that twelve of Europes leading football clubs had agreed to establish a new midweek competition, the European Super League, governed by its Founding Clubs. The goal was to rival the UEFA Champions League. In the end, it rivals Colgates frozen food or Bics hosiery in the award for worst business ideas.

The concept was this: top clubs would minimise risk and get a cash boost by forming a hermetically sealed league (bar a few teams that they would magnanimously permit to join each year). The 15 founding members would be immune from relegation; the position of the five lesser clubs was more precarious.

Within 48 hours of the dirty dozen confirming their intention to redefine the structure of European football, all six English clubs (Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester United, Manchester City and Tottenham) had been forced into an embarrassing climbdown. At the time of writing just two had yet to announce their departure.

The storm of protest didnt take long to brew. First were the squeals and threats of sanctions from the games European and world governing bodies. Then came Boris Johnson, Keir Starmer, and many other opportunistic politicians who started tweeting absurdities about no action being off the table and government doing whatever it takes to bring the gravy train to a juddering halt.

Later, former England defender and Sky Sports pundit Gary Neville claimed it was pure greed. Well sure, Gary, but for clubs to satisfy their avarice they need to provide supporters with a product theyre willing to buy. Giving the fans what they want and greed arent mutually exclusive.

We should remember that there are two audiences here, however, with different ideas of what the consumer good is. One group likes the idea of seeing Liverpool play Real Madrid but couldnt care less about the Merseyside reds taking on a lesser-known team. These supporters are drawn in by individual players and on skill; they follow a team in the same way that they have a favourite brand of beer or type of food.

But the other group value the raw openness, the uncertainty and the competition. It brings tension, and failure makes the success all the sweeter. Theyll traipse to the stands come rain or shine and weep when their underdog beats the odds, because they value traditional identity and rivalry. Its why, at the start of the week, a product bifurcation looked possible. The Premier League and national associations could have expelled the Super League (and should have been free to do so).

To understand why the project imploded, just look at the response after the six English clubs withdrew. Players, pundits, fans all cheered a beautiful day for football. It was the sheer volume of complaints, the weight of the backlash, that triggered the collapse. I belong in neither of the above groups as a football sceptic Ive never really grasped its appeal but even I could see that a competition in which Arsenal would lose endlessly to AC Milan with no fear of relegation would get boring, fast.

Importantly, the ESL was not brought to its knees by government regulation regardless of how much our libertarian Prime Minister might have yearned to claim that scalp. In case there was ever any doubt that this free market administration that advocates for government getting out of the way is actually more committed to finding innovative ways of encroaching into our everyday lives, the rapid-fire threat of legislative bombs has put it to rest.This is a government that will impose bans on countless forms of entertainment it doesnt like regardless of whether it is causing harm to others. What we eat, drink, smoke, inject and thats not to mention the misery weve all been under this past year.

Was there really any justification for intervention?The breakaway wouldve established a regulated oligopolistic competition. But the Premier League has long been an oligarchy of a handful of top clubs with the funds to outbid others for the best players. With the exception of the Leicester City shock, the PL has been dominated by five clubs for over two decades. If we clamp down on this, then do we also deconstruct the Boat Race or the Ashes? How do we reconcile claims of a cartel with the fact that the Europa League and Champions League would havecontinued operating? And if a closed shop did restrict competition (lets not forget that many top clubs are listed public companies and therefore bound by competition policy), would this anti-competitive move not have been a question for the courts?

It doesnt take a season ticket holder to realise that the Super League was destined to outrage and doomed to fail. We didnt learn much from this episode, though apparently the Prime Minister isnt into football much himself. I guess that means we have one thing in common, given we may no longer share a love of individual liberty.

Excerpt from:
Boris's threat to intervene in the Super League furore is proof that his libertarian instincts are dead - Reaction

When Politicians Panicked, John Tamnys new book about the political response to the coronavirus pandemic, is a shocking read.

When Politicians Panicked, John Tamnys new book about the political response to the coronavirus pandemic, is a shocking read. Tamny, a political theorist at Freedom Works, editor of the Real Clear Markets website, economic advisor to a mutual fund and author of several books on economics, lives near Washington, D.C. He is also a Libertarians Libertarian.

When Politicians Panicked (pictured below) is two books in one.

The first, interspersed throughout, is a primer on Libertarian economics. Tamny has little to no faith that economists acting under government directives can generate wealth. Regulations, taxes, policymakers (especially the Fed) and government spending is, according to him, counterproductive. It robs the capital needed for growth from the productive economy, creating something not stimulative but regressive. He writes, Economic growth is a consequence of economic freedom. When people are broadly free to produce sans overbearing barriers of the tax, regulation, trade and floating money variety, they prosper. Tamnys intellectual heroes are the father of economics Adam Smith and political theorist John Stuart Mill.

In the second book, Tamny argues that the COVID-19 lockdowns were fiscally ruinous without accomplishing their public health goal. When Worth spoke to Tamny he made the following analogy: I compare the lockdowns to a medically induced coma that later requires another medical intervention, including stimulants and shocks, to revive the patient. In this case, the coma was induced by a paranoid government now struggling to revive what it broke.

Tamny (pictured to the right) starts with the premise that adults should be free to make their own decisions. This goes for private enterprises as well. Thus, if a person is afraid of contracting COVID-19 at a Disney park, sports arena or restaurant, they should avoid going. Conversely, if these establishments, for reputational, liability or personal reasons, do not want to open, no one should force them to. Not only that, but via people and venues making individual decisions as to virus avoidance, much could be learned about best safety practices. As he put it on page 65, In short, the policy theorists on the left and right were the crisis. They were substituting their limited knowledge for that of the marketplace.

In the books early pages, the author states he is not going to engage in medical second-guessing about the lethality of the virus, but his personal viewpoint is clear. (He does not think it is highly lethal as its mortality was primarily limited to the elderly and those with co-morbidities.) He believes if the virus had been far more deadly, rational people would have stayed home and the business world would have taken enhanced precautions. Forced lockdowns would have been superfluous. It cannot be stressed enough that people do not need a law to avoid that which might kill them.

The micromanaging of the shutdowns was, as so many have pointed out, often irrational. You could buy flowers at an essential Walmart but not at your local florist.

The irrationality was not the only thing contagious. Gyms, when they reopened, eliminated all grooming aids like Aqua Velva and deodorantboth well-known virus vectors! School openings and closings were not only chaotic but logic-free. In NYC, restaurants were heavily fined if inspectors found an open wine bottle after the 10 p.m. alcohol curfew.

Tamny finds all this not only maddening but an absurdity born not out of science but panic. He has some serious scientific company in this belief. His friend, journalist John Tierney, believes the same thing.

Is Tamny hard-hearted? Is he a social Darwinist? Not at all. As he told Worth, By and large, this pandemic was an inconvenience at worst, or a vacation to the wealthy, Zoom-enabled, or those with Wolf stoves for baking. To the working class, to those who were laid off because they needed to physically be at their jobs, the economic suffering and dislocation were devastating. This tragedy is emphasized in his book.

Tamny doesnt believe this aspect of the pandemics lockdowns will see the true light of day because writers and editors do not live in the world of the poor. While Tamny doesnt either, he seems more sympathetic to the plight of those not able to keep their paychecks going. He cites credible forecasts that hundreds of millions will starve globally. We know in America hunger is real with the Brookings Institute stating that food insecurity has doubled due to COVID-19.

Ironically, one-size-fits-all lockdowns did not affect all the same way. This truth seems undeniable. Why else would we need trillions in relief packages? Certainly not for those with stock portfolios or homes in the Hamptons or Palm Beach.

So, what is the shocking part of When Politicians Panicked? The realization that Tamny is half or even a quarter right in believing the governments response to the pandemic made it worse. If each person, each business and school was able to make decisions based on their assessment of risk to reward, would we have been better off? Would the economic disaster that befell so many have been lessened?

When Politicians Panicked is the Libertarian answer to these questions.

An indispensable guide to finance, investing and entrepreneurship.

See the article here:
The Economic Fallout of COVID-19: Could We Have Avoided This Disaster? - Worth

On Tuesday, May 18 Pennsylvania expects the same low turnout that we see at most primary elections. This would be unfortunate, since this primary affects every voter in the state, no matter their political party, or if they are registered as an independent. Yet the sad truth is thousands of voters are probably unaware that they are even allowed to cast a vote.

Everyone pays for a primary to be held, although Libertarians like myself, as well as Green or other party members, cannot participate in most primaries. An exception is when referendums are on the ballot. Independents are also excluded from voting in primaries in our state. But next month everyone is allowed to vote on some key referendums that will affect our state constitution.

Even Democrats and Republicans often skip the primary. They may assume their party machine has predetermined the winner, so they may as well wait until the general election in the fall. This means important changes to the Pennsylvania constitution will be determined by far fewer voters than if these proposals were on a November ballot.

As usual, the referendums are worded awkwardly, but they contain important proposals that would affect the use of government powers as well as the ability to discriminate against individuals. This is our chance, as voters, to place important decision powers back into the hands of the constituents, and to ensure that all Pennsylvanians are treated fairly no matter what their background may be.

The Libertarian Party of Chester County supports all three referendums. As Libertarians, we promote individual freedom and reject the notion that a single executive can suspend the state constitution without answering to the voters or their elected representatives. Two of these referendums are focused on this.

For the past year business and schools throughout the Delaware Valley as well as the rest of the state have suffered from constantly changing, often arbitrary rules that have violated the state constitution, and the rights of citizens. Pennsylvania's constitution allows for the temporary suspension of some laws in the case of a serious emergency. The keyword here is 'temporary,' defined as 21 days.

When an executive violates the spirit of this law by arbitrarily extending an emergency order as often as he likes, we no longer are faced with an emergency, we instead have a version of martial law that can last as long as only one person decides. The May ballot proposes that while a chief executive may declare an emergency (which makes sense) the executive may not endlessly prolong it without permission from the legislature (which follows the spirit of our constitution).

Another amendment makes this clear; an emergency is a temporary situation that may last for up to 21 days. It does not allow you to close businesses, shut schools, and prevent assembly for undefined periods of time. Again, this power belongs to the voters and to their representatives, not to a single politician.

The last initiative is a joint resolution to prohibit discrimination due to race or ethnicity. This resolution is designed to ensure that our rights are not denied or abridged because of who we are. While it appeared that not every major party supported this at first, the resolution now seems to have the backing of every party, as it should.

The LPCC urges every voter to go to the polls this May 18 and vote yes on all three proposals. Reject discrimination and reject placing powers in the hands of one executive, no matter what party they support.

The pandemic is thankfully reaching its final stages, thanks to brilliant technology and the hard work of so many in the medical profession. But the damage caused to business, students, workers and families will unfortunately be with us for a long time, largely due to the poor decisions made by a single chief executive who felt he could ignore the will of his constituents and their elected representatives.

It is time to end the dictatorship. Support equal rights. Support our state constitution. Vote YES on the ballot initiatives on May 18.

Stephen Wahrhaftig is the chair of the Libertarian Party of Chester County.

The Delaware Valley Journal provides unbiased, local reporting for the Philadelphia suburbs of Bucks, Chester, Delaware and Montgomery Counties. For more stories from the Delaware Valley Journal, visit DelawareValleyJournal.com

Go here to see the original:
WAHRHAFTIG: This Year's Primary Affects Everyone And Everyone Can Vote - Patch.com

Maybe thats just politics

Im writing this to give my perspective and a Libertarian critique of the goings-on in Washington, D.C. Recently, U.S. Rep. Kai Kahele introduced the Remove the Stain Act, regarding the tragedy of Wounded Knee.

Wounded Knee was a horrible tragedy, one in which a dominant, technology superior military force killed hundreds of innocent men, women, and children. It is one of many stains on America. Maybe Libertarian ideology is just too consistent, but can someone explain the difference to me as to why this stain should stand above all? What is the difference between Native Americans the victims of U.S. dominance of North America and the victims of the rising U.S. global empire and our current foreign policy?

If Wounded Knee is a stain and a mark of tragedy that disgraces the ideals of what we think the U.S. stands for, then what about the last 70 years? I believe the countless countries destroyed and millions of lives lost by Americas rise to global dominance were tragedies enormous stains against the ideals of what America stands for: the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The current wars are against poor, brown, less sophisticated societies that have resulted in the death of millions. The wars of recent are wars of aggression and those nations pose no threat to the people of the U.S. They do pose a threat to benevolent global hegemony. If killing innocents 130 years ago is a cause for removal of medals, then what about current foreign policy? I find it disturbing that our leaders will focus on tragedy of the past, while encouraging and supporting tragedies in the present. But maybe thats just politics. Maybe the worse stains are only the ones you see.

Kekaulike Tomich

Kaupulehu

Unhappy with Roths actions

I was very pleased to read Tiffany Edwards Hunts op-ed about Mayor Mitch Roth urging the Hawaii County Council members to remove Mr. Van Pernis from the Leeward Planning Commission.

Like her, I dont want to believe that he wrote the letter, as so far, Im very unhappy with the new mayors actions, and this is just one of the reasons. So far, Im going to work for the current mayor to be a one-term mayor.

Ive written to the Planning Committee, which the council chair, Maile David, has directed this request. Hopefully, it will die in the committee and not have to be heard at the council meeting.

Mahalo Tiffany!!!

Marjorie Erway

Kailua Kona

Letters policy

Letters to the editor should be 300 words or less and will be edited for style and grammar. Longer viewpoint guest columns may not exceed 800 words. Submit online at http://www.westhawaiitoday.com/?p=118321, via email to letters@westhawaiitoday.com or address them to:

Editor

West Hawaii Today

PO Box 789

Kailua-Kona, HI 96745

Excerpt from:
Letters to the Editor: April 5, 2021 - West Hawaii Today

President Bidens treasury secretary Janet Yellen using her first major speech to call for a global minimum tax rate is exactly the kind of big-government, nowhere-to-hide nightmare that caused so many people to turn to populist nationalism over the past decade.

It doesnt help that she was confirmed to her new position by a Senate vote of 84-15, either. That just shows that, exactly as the populists warned us, the establishment is unified when it comes time to behave like haughty mercantilists, constantly shifting just a bit more money and economic decision-making power into the hands of rulers and out of common peoples.

Governments love homogeneous international standards, not because such standards are a token of global peace and shared humanity but because when all governments are on the same page policy-wise, theres no longer any easy way for people to compare two countries and say, Hey look, Option B works better! Ill buy, sell, run a business, or work over there! Homogeneity puts a stop to comparison-shopping of all kinds. For the same reason, totalitarian regimes never want their subjects getting too much information about what life is like overseas. When you cant compare and cant choose, youre more likely to accept your lot and submit.

Naturally, the Biden/Yellen push is for a globalminimumtax, too, not a maximum. They dont want any country luring away business by offering more freedomick, competition!but if some country wants to offer less freedom, well, thats fine, who are we to judge, etc. This is the ruling classs master plan to prevent the global race to the bottom that the left and left-liberals are always warning about, which is really the natural competition to find, move to, and trade with the places that have the least oppressive taxes and regulations.

Its neither globalism nor localism per se that does harm, though, but the lack of freedom. Politicians usually do harm on both a global and local level; the so-called globalistsinternational organizations and national leaders such as Biden with enough clout to influence the policies of other countriesjust have a strategic advantage when it comes to cutting off your escape routes. They fear you having economic options in the same way they lately fear boisterous dissenting voices. We should resist this sort of global governance but should welcome free global trade, contrary to the thinking of both the left and the populist right, which dreams of thwarting commerce just as much as the left does but by different means (walls and tariffs instead of globally-harmonized regulatory schemes).

I outlined some of these free-market basicsrooted in individual property rightsin my bookLibertarianism for Beginnersfive years ago this month. The world may need such ideas even more now than it did then, so perhaps I wasnt very effective. As if Trumps anti-global-trade tendencies and the whole worlds acceptance of anti-COVID lockdowns didnt do enough to tamp down commerce and reduce our liberties, Biden is now undoing exactly those things Trump got right, such as tax and regulatory reforms (measures you may recall contributing to a big economic boom just before COVID derailed everything).

The rising stock market, as the real left has long said, conceals suffering closer to the bottom rungs of the economy, and very little of Bidens trillion-dollar infrastructure spending plan will do anything to change that. The freedom to trade would, without government needing to do a thing besides stay out of the way for a change.

Biden is doing and planning economic damage without even freeing up the border, which was surely the one increase in freedom that people had a right to expect from the anti-Trump political faction. Migrants are one of the most visible expressions of people rationally choosing one legal regime over another (when theyre permitted to do so and arent herded into camps upon arrival). Its globalismof the natural kind that happens without regulatory edicts from on high, when people are allowed to do as they choose, where they choose. Predictably, restrictions on peoples freedom in that area appear likely to carry over from the prior administration even as new restrictions (and new spending) are added in other areas.

Thats the usual pattern: The authoritarian policies stick, the libertarian ones get ditched.

Adding insult to injury, even a growing number of libertarians seem to get these issues wrong, becoming suckers for the global-sounding talk of would-be international regulators like Yellen or for the defensive-sounding talk of right-wing border patrol enthusiasts, mistaking the former for trade and the latter for secure property rights. Both right and left (even within libertarian ranks) seem to be growing angrier and more willing to talk about using government to enact punitive reprisals against political enemies.

And when dialogue breaks down, the last thing we need is a world so homogenizedso uniformly taxed, regulated, and policedthat you cant even stand up and walk away.

Todd Seavey is the author ofLibertarianism for Beginnersand is on Twitter at @ToddSeavey.

Read this article:
The Bad Kind of Globalism - Splice Today

I'm not in principle opposed to "vaccine passports," in the sense of reliable mechanisms of showing that you have been vaccinated (against COVID or against future diseases). That is especially so if they are used by private businesses, such as bars or stadiums or cruise ships, which want to reopen relatively safely, and in a way that assures patrons that they are relatively safe. (Since the vaccines aren't perfectly reliable, even vaccinated patrons might reasonably prefer close gatherings only with people who have been vaccinated.) But I think they would make sense for some government functions as well; for more on why I think such requirements are permissible even from a libertarianish perspective, see my Libertarianism and Communicable Disease post.

Still, the devil is in the details. Some involve substantive judgments: For instance, how would the vaccine passports deal with people who have good medical reasons not to get vaccinated? Others involve judgments about how best to minimize the risk that sensitive medical information will get hacked, or that the infrastructure will be too easily adapted for future improper uses (depending of course on which uses one thinks might be improper).

But there's also the supply chain political blacklist risk I discussed in a post earlier this morning. Say a venue (a meeting hall, a hotel, a university) starts using a passport that's supplied by some tech company, and that tech company then decideswhether because of its managers' or employees' ideological views, or because of pressure from other customers or suppliersthat it will stop serving venues that host "extremist" or "hateful" or "pro-insurrectionist" or anti-"anti-racist" events. Or say that the company decides to stop serving passport-holders who have attended such nefarious events; they reject such evil ideas, the company would say, and they don't want their technology to be used to spread such ideas.

What started out as just a health and safety decision by the venue, or by the government if it is requiring certain venues to check the vaccine passports, will have turned into extra private company control over what people can say and hear. Such control might be perfectly legal; I'm not claiming otherwise. But people (whether venue owners or customers or advocates or government officials) deciding whether to adopt such passports, and whether to support such passports, might want to try to prevent this up front.They might, for instance,

In any event, I think the events of recent months and years should remind us to consider supply chain political blacklist risk, just as we consider technological security risks, mission creep risks, and other such concerns.

Read more:
Vaccine Passports and Supply Chain Political Blacklist Risk - Reason