Liberty Is Not A "Luxury Belief". It Is A Birthright For All

The term "luxury beliefs" has gained quite a lot of traction since it was coined in 2019, and especially since 2022, by Rob Henderson.  Per Wikipedia:

A luxury belief is an idea or opinion that confers status on members of the upper class at little cost, while inflicting costs on persons in lower classes.  The term is often applied to privileged individuals who are seen as disconnected from the lived experiences of impoverished and marginalized people. Such individuals supposedly hold political and social beliefs that signal their elite status, yet which are alleged to have negative impacts on those with the least influence. Exactly what counts as a luxury belief is not always consistent and may vary from person to person, and the term in general is considered to be controversial.

Make no mistake, it is typically only (social) conservatives that have been using the term in recent years to describe their opponents' views on various hot-button issues (bail reform, criminal justice, policing, MMT, immigration, net zero, environmentalism, marriage and family, sexual freedom, reproductive rights, drug legalization and decriminalization, etc.).  Occasionally the left and center-left have used the term (much more accurately, we would argue) to describe conservative beliefs like "supply-side economics", "trickle-down theory", austerity, artificial scarcity, weak or nonexistent social safety nets, and stuff like that, but the use of the term on the left in that context is relatively rare.

On the right, and even somewhat on the "third way" neoliberal left since President Clinton, there seems to be this specious idea that too much personal liberty is somehow apocalyptically worse than too little, particularly for the poor, downtrodden, and vulnerable members of society, and especially for racialized minorities (who says conservatives don't "play the race card" when it's convenient?).  We argue that this is a patronizing and paternalistic attitude towards people that the talking heads (consciously or unconsciously) feel smugly superior to, and it essentially robs such people of agency.  And to be blunt about it, as the saying goes, "crap always rolls downhill".  That is, granted, ANY policy can have unintended consequences per Murphy's Law, and as a well-known corollary, those negative consequences tend to accrue disproportionately to those who lack the means to insulate themselves from such consequences, particularly those at the bottom of the socioeconomic hierarchy.  For example, in that regard, we can call the War on (people who use a few particular) Drugs just as much if not more of a "luxury belief" as full drug legalization would be in practice, as the adverse consequences (which are not entirely unintended!) fall disproportionately on poor people and/or racialized minorities. 

As Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) famously said, "you can get over an addiction, but you will never get over a conviction".  And that clearly applies tenfold to the poor as it does to the rich.

The real problem is systemic, as must any real solution be.  But liberty per se is not the problem.  While the utterly patronizing and paternalistic protectionism and "tyranny of the weaker brother" is the real luxury belief here, as are the economic ones like "trickle-down theory", austerity, and neoliberalism. ("Catch and release" and "defund the police" are the only ones that Henderson mentions that even come close in that regard.)

The TSAP supports liberty and justice for all, in contrast to liberty for "just us", NOT all.  To quote Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies (sic) attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it".  Truer words have never been spoken indeed.

(Mic drop)

Is The Cure Worse Than The Disease?

We know that the Trump administration clearly bungled its response to the coronavirus pandemic.  Scratch that, they failed miserably in practically every way possible to contain or suppress this virus, and now the proverbial genie is out of the bottle.  But what if the proverbial stopped clock can be right twice a day, particularly the claim that "the cure is worse than the disease" as far as shutdowns and lockdowns are concerned?

As is typical for Republicans, Democrats, and LOLbertarians alike, no one seems to do nuance, nor do they understand Monetary Sovereignty apparently. And the Donald is clearly no exception to the rule either.

That said, there are reasons to be concerned that longer-term shutdowns and lockdowns (some pundits even predict up to 18 months!) can cause a depression that NO amount of federal money can solve until well after such drastic measures are lifted. Because we didn’t quash it early on when we had the chance, there will likely be a long battle against COVID-19, to be sure, but the current “sledgehammer” phase of the battle cannot last indefinitely. Sooner or later we will have to ease or lift restrictions and pivot to case-based interventions rather than population-based ones once any of the following occur: A) the epidemic is largely under control, B) we reach the point of irreversible damage to the economy, or C) the epidemic exceeds 1% of the population and “flattening the curve” thus becomes impossible. Whichever comes first. And at least one of these three will happen within a few weeks from now at most, for better or worse.   Lockdowns and shutdowns are best thought of as a short-term tactic, not a long-term strategy. 

That’s to say nothing of the cost in terms of individual liberty, which is at *least* as priceless as life itself, as well as the cost in terms of mental health at least in the long run. Economic depression is not the only kind of depression to worry about, after all.

And even for hardcore communitarians who believe that individual liberty is worth absolutely zilch, one also can argue that the social consequences of long-term lockdowns and social distancing are ultimately corrosive to community as well.

And as of early April, option C likely already happened at least in parts of the USA, particularly the greater NYC metro area, plus several other hotspots around the nation.  Given how most people who catch the virus experience mild or no symptoms, it is very likely that the number of reported cases is off by a factor of ten or more.  Which, of course, makes the case fatality rate lower as well.  In any case, the peak will likely happen sometime in mid to late April in much of the country, with some areas in May.

Thus, there will come a point of diminishing returns where the cure really DOES become worse than the disease.  When exactly, no one knows for sure.  But a good ballpark estimate would be "weeks, not months".

Thus, the TSAP does NOT support the more extreme measures lasting more than a few weeks, nor even the less extreme ones lasting more than a few months at most.  And for NO length of time do we support arresting or jailing or shooting people for leaving their homes, suspending habeas corpus or the Constitution, or any form of martial law.  Period.

DISCLAIMER:  The TSAP are NOT doctors, epidemiologists, or otherwise experts on this matter, so please take our predictions with a grain of salt.

Down With SOPA!

The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), along with its companion bill Protect IP Act (PIPA), is currently being debated in Congress.  This bipartisan effort, ostensibly to fight internet piracy and counterfeit goods, has been mired in controversy since its inception.  While supporters (mainly those in the entertainment industry) hail it as a necessary step to take, opponents (most Internet users and virtually all of Silicon Valley) fear that it would amount to censorship of the Internet.

Regardless of how you feel about piracy (and counterfeiting), SOPA's vague language goes way beyond that.  It essentially creates a "Great Firewall of America" that would blacklist not only pirate sites, but potentially any site worldwide with user-created content if corporations claim that such content may have been pirated.  Internet service providers could be required to block IP addresses of certain sites and monitor Internet traffic, effectively making such sites disappear from the Web.  The potential for collateral damage (not to mention abuse) is enormous, and there are also security implications to consider.  Such a bill would be a blatant violation of the First Amendment's guaranteed right to freedom of speech.  Additionally, SOPA is unnecessary--there are other means to defeat the foreign and domestic "rogue sites" that are the primary targets, and one alternative bill (the OPEN Act) does so by cutting off funding to such sites (from ads and credit cards) without actually censoring the Internet or any part of it.

It should go without saying that the TSAP opposes this bill, which would chill the free exchange of ideas and essentially end the Internet as we know it.

UPDATE:  It appears that SOPA has been shelved by Congress for now.  And we hope it never rears its ugly head again.