Liberty Lens

As an African American Libertarian, my perspective on the preservation of monuments differs from the commonly accepted viewpoints within the black community. I believe it is important for all voices, including those diverging from the mainstream narrative, to be heard and considered. I recognize that black people are not a monolithic group, and we should not be confined to a single way of thinking. While acknowledging the country’s long road towards true freedom and equality, I disagree with the notion that destroying statues and monuments representing racism and bigotry in our history is the most effective way to address these issues. From Pedestals to Pavement: The Contemporary Wave of Dismantling Monuments In recent years, there has been a surge in the tearing down of statues and monuments across the United States. This has resulted in the removal or defacement of numerous statues and memorials, especially those associated with figures who have been identified as proponents of racism, slavery, and oppression. While the intentions behind these acts may be well-meaning, it is crucial to critically examine whether this approach serves our country’s best interests in the long run. This wave of monument removals signifies more than just an aesthetic change in our public spaces. It reflects a profound shift in societal attitudes towards historical figures and the narratives we choose to honor. Many argue that these actions are a necessary step towards confronting the harsh realities of our past and making amends for historical injustices. However, while the intentions behind these actions are often rooted in a desire for justice and equality, it’s important to scrutinize the implications of this trend. Some critics suggest that removing these monuments might inadvertently lead to a form of historical erasure, whitewashing the complexities of our past. They argue that these statues, however problematic, serve as tangible reminders of our history, providing opportunities for education and dialogue. Moreover, it’s worth considering what should replace these monuments once they’re gone. Do we leave these spaces empty, or do we erect new symbols that better reflect our society’s evolving values? And who gets to decide what those values are? Ultimately, the current trend of tearing down statues and monuments raises important questions about how we choose to remember our past, who we honor in our public spaces, and how we navigate the fine line between acknowledging historical realities and perpetuating harmful narratives. As we continue to grapple with these issues, it’s crucial that we approach them with thoughtfulness, respect, and a commitment to fostering understanding and reconciliation. A Questionable Trend: Is It Truly Beneficial for Our Nation or Black People The recent removal of the statue of General Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville, Virginia, a symbol of the Confederacy, has sparked widespread debate about the role of such monuments in our society. The bronze equestrian statue, which once stood as a reminder of a painful past, was melted down after a protracted legal battle and is set to be repurposed for a public art installation. While this action may seem like a significant stride towards addressing racism in America, it’s essential to examine its actual impact on the black community. Tearing down a statue, even one that represents a controversial figure, does not directly address the underlying socio-economic challenges faced by many within the black communities. Removing a statue does not create more jobs for black individuals, improve their economic conditions, or reduce the high rates of incarceration among black people. It doesn’t confront systemic issues like racial wealth disparity, educational inequality, or healthcare disparities. These are deep-rooted problems that require comprehensive policy changes and substantial investments rather than symbolic gestures. While the intention behind the removal and repurposing of such monuments is commendable, it’s crucial to ensure that these actions do not overshadow the more pressing issues that need our attention. Addressing the symptoms of a problem without confronting its roots can lead to superficial solutions. In this case, the actual needs of black communities risk being overlooked. Hence, it’s important to question whether this trend is genuinely beneficial for our nation and, specifically, for black people. Uncovering the Past: The Historical Context of Statues and Monuments To truly understand the significance of statues and monuments, we must delve into the historical context in which they were erected. Many statues, including those honoring Confederate leaders, were installed during the Jim Crow era as symbols of white supremacy. They represented a painful and divisive time in our history. However, it is crucial to recognize the intentions and motivations behind their creation. These statues were often erected as a way to perpetuate the values and ideology of the Confederate South. They were meant to reinforce white dominance and maintain racial hierarchies. While this is undeniably abhorrent, it is essential to remember that history cannot be changed. What happened in the past remains a past fact. The statues remain as reminders of a dark chapter in our past, and their existence provides an opportunity to confront and learn from our history. This is not to praise the statues or its original meaning. This is not to admit that there is or ever was any inherent goodness in the meaning behind which these statues were constructed. However, acknowledging the negative aspects associated with the figures these statues represent is necessary. Confederate leaders, for example, fought to preserve the institution of slavery. Rather than erasing these statues, we should see them as reminders of our progress as a society. By remembering and confronting our history, we can better understand the struggles and challenges that have shaped our present. The Danger of Erasing History Throughout history, attempts to erase or deny aspects of the past have often resulted in repeated mistakes. The Holocaust, for example, is a horrifying chapter in human history. In the United States alone, there are at least 16 major Holocaust museums in cities like Richmond, Houston, New York, and Washington. In Europe, notable examples include the Anne Frank House in the Netherlands, the Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Museum

In the intricate web of American politics, where the threads of power are predominantly woven by the Democratic and Republican Parties, a recent ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court has sent shockwaves across the nation. This pivotal decision, which excludes former President Donald Trump from the 2024 primary ballot, represents an unprecedented interpretation of the Constitution’s insurrection clause. The controversy this ruling has ignited provides a compelling backdrop for this comprehensive study on the evolution of electoral exclusion in America. The court’s decree marked a historic moment as it was the first instance of a court deeming Trump ineligible to hold office again, citing his alleged involvement in an insurrection. Adding to the drama, the court held its ruling in abeyance until January 4, 2024, pending additional appellate proceedings. This ground-breaking verdict has emboldened the Colorado Republican Party to challenge the decision, potentially setting the stage for a landmark showdown in the nation’s highest court over the interpretation of a constitutional provision that has stood for over a century and a half. The gravity of this case is amplified by the potential precedent it could set, influencing future decisions in other states and courts across the nation. As of now, the final outcome hangs in the balance, with the possibility of the issue escalating to the U.S. Supreme Court for a definitive resolution. These developments have stirred up a maelstrom of debate and controversy not just within the confines of Colorado, but across the entire breadth of the nation. While many Republicans decry the decision as illegal and unconstitutional, this article aims to cast light on the broader issue of electoral exclusion that has long plagued third-party candidates within the American political system. With a particular focus on the Libertarian Party, recognized as the third largest party in America, this study will delve into the historical challenges these alternative political entities have faced. Moreover, it will explore the reactions of Republicans to Trump’s exclusion, underscoring the urgent need for fairness and reform in the electoral process. Within the complex landscape of American politics, this controversy stands as a stark reminder of the harsh winds of injustice that can disrupt the course of electoral participation. By exploring these issues, we seek to contribute to the discourse on democratic fairness and the evolution of electoral exclusion in America. The Colorado Conundrum The recent ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court, which has effectively barred Donald Trump from appearing on the ballot, has ignited a firestorm of debate. The core of this contention revolves around the legality and constitutionality of such a decision. Detractors assert that this move is not only illegal but also a blatant disregard for justice, while supporters claim it falls within the court’s jurisdiction and is backed by established laws and regulations. To dissect this complex issue comprehensively, one must delve into the legal and constitutional facets at play. Those in favor of Trump’s exclusion argue that the decision was not arbitrary but anchored in existing legal frameworks. They contend that the court’s interpretation of the Constitution’s insurrection clause led to their ruling, asserting that this interpretation was both valid and within their rights. However, the opposition paints a starkly different picture. They argue that the court’s decision egregiously violates democratic principles and infringes upon the rights of voters to choose their preferred candidate. Furthermore, they posit that the court’s ruling was not merely an objective interpretation of the law but was heavily influenced by personal bias and prejudice against Trump. A central point of their argument is that the court’s decision seemed to be based more on their personal assessment of Trump’s deservability to be on the ballot, rather than strictly adhering to the legal provisions. They contend that disliking a candidate’s personality, presentation, or political stance should not provide grounds for barring them from ballot access. This, they argue, is not just unfair, but illegal. Through a thorough examination of the arguments put forth by both sides, a more nuanced understanding of the controversy surrounding Trump’s exclusion can be gleaned. This case serves as a stark reminder of the importance of maintaining objectivity and fairness in the electoral process, and the potential repercussions when these principles are compromised. The Ignored Plight of Third Parties In the midst of the uproar surrounding Trump’s exclusion from the ballot, it is imperative to shine a light on the often overlooked struggles that third-party candidates have been grappling with for years. These candidates, including those from the Libertarian Party, face an uphill battle in their quest to secure a spot on ballots and fair representation in debates. Their efforts, more often than not, are overshadowed by the two major parties, with the mainstream press paying scant attention to their campaigns. This section delves into the labyrinthine challenges that third-party candidates have faced throughout history. It provides a detailed examination of the formidable barriers to ballot access they often encounter. From restrictive ballot access laws that favor established parties to a petitioning process that can be draining both in terms of resources and time, these obstacles frequently stifle alternative voices before they can reach the electorate. Moreover, this examination discusses the limited opportunities provided for third-party candidates to participate in debates. This lack of representation further marginalizes their voices, essentially silencing them in a political discourse dominated by Democrats and Republicans. By drawing parallels between the historical struggles endured by third parties and the current situation faced by Trump, a striking pattern of electoral exclusion emerges. This pattern transcends party lines, pointing to a systemic issue that pervades the entire political landscape. The exclusion of candidates, whether due to personal biases or entrenched political structures, compromises the very essence of democracy, which is to provide voters with a diverse array of choices. This case serves as a stark reminder of the need for electoral reforms that ensure fairness and equal opportunities for all candidates, regardless of their party affiliations. It underscores the importance of fostering a political environment where alternative viewpoints are

In America, freedom is not just a word, but a deeply cherished value. However, true freedom cannot be realized until we confront the many of the glaring issues within our criminal justice system. One of the most crucial aspects in this system that is far too often overlooked is the dire need for mental health reform among prisoners. The failure to address this issue not only infringes upon the freedom of the mentally ill but also affects the taxpayers and citizens of America at large. By exploring the costly process of entering the prison system and the lack of support for mental health, we will shed light on the urgent necessity for change. The Costly Journey into the System From the routine process of entry to the prison system, the costly journey burdens taxpayers at every stage. Arrest, booking, pretrial detention, court proceedings, incarceration, rehabilitation programs, parole or probation, and reentry programs all come with significant financial expenses. Each step requires the allocation of resources, personnel, and facilities paid for by hardworking Americans. The cumulative costs are staggering. Firstly, let’s explore the costly process of arrest, which involves law enforcement officers apprehending individuals suspected of a crime. This procedure incurs significant expenses such as officer time, equipment use, and administrative processing. Booking adds to the financial burden, with recording personal information, documenting alleged crimes, and capturing fingerprints and photographs requiring resources and personnel. Pretrial detention, for those unable to post bail, results in the cost of housing, feeding, and providing medical care for individuals awaiting their court dates. Court proceedings, including arraignments, pretrial hearings, trials, and sentencing, involve judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, court reporters, and administrative staff. Expenses also cover court facilities, legal research, and evidence handling. Incarceration is the most expensive stage, as taxpayers bear the costs of employee salaries and benefits, inmate housing, food, healthcare, security, and utilities. Rehabilitation programs, aimed at reducing recidivism, are also funded by taxpayers. These programs provide education, job training, substance abuse treatment, and mental health services. Parole or probation require supervision, check-ins, drug testing, and administrative oversight, all of which incur additional costs. Reentry programs offer services like job placement, housing assistance, and counseling, funded by taxpayers. These stages each contribute to the significant financial burden of the prison system, diverting resources that could be allocated to preventive measures, targeted mental health treatment, and community support programs. Comprehensive reform is necessary to alleviate the strain on taxpayers and ensure a more just and cost-effective system. The Hidden Profits of Mental Health Neglect Although there is limited direct academic evidence on the hidden profits stemming from the neglect of mental health among prisoners, the report ‘Reducing the risk of recidivism’ by the Parliament of New South Wales discusses the introduction of mandatory imprisonment for repeat offenders, highlighting a potential financial motivation behind the neglect of mental health care (Parliament of New South Wales, 2006).” As such, it is crucial to recognize the potential hidden profits that arise from neglecting mental health within the prison system. Despite the high prevalence of mental health issues in this population, little investment goes into targeted treatment that could reduce incarceration rates by 80-90 percent. Unfortunately, the system benefits financially from the presence of mentally ill individuals, perpetuating a costly cycle of incarceration that undermines justice and freedom. Mentally ill individuals are more likely to be arrested and incarcerated, leading to increased funding for prisons and profitable contracts for private corporations. Their specialized medical care, medications, and additional security measures further burden taxpayers. This profit-driven neglect hinders rehabilitation, as mentally ill prisoners lack access to proper treatment. They leave prison without the tools to reintegrate into society successfully, increasing the likelihood of reoffending. To rectify this, it is important to invest in comprehensive mental health programs within the prison system. Alternative approaches like community-based treatment and mental health courts can also be implemented to provide care while reducing imprisonment rates. By dismantling this profit-driven mentality and prioritizing mental health, we can ensure a more humane and effective criminal justice system that upholds justice, freedom, and genuine rehabilitation. The Failure to Provide Adequate Care One of the lesser-known realities is that the American prison system falls significantly short in providing suitable care for individuals with mental health issues. Dr. Christine Montross, in her seminal work, “Waiting for an Echo: The Madness of American Incarceration,” meticulously describes the plight of those suffering from mental illness behind bars. The existing system fails to prioritize mental health and offers little enforcement or reinforcement of support mechanisms. This negligence traps individuals in a cycle of recidivism, perpetuating their suffering and hampering their chances of a successful reintegration into society upon release. Recognizing the urgent need for change, the dawn of mandatory care within the prison system presents a promising path forward. Instead of perpetuating the neglect of mental health needs, mandatory care advocates for the allocation of resources to ensure that every individual in the system receives the treatment they deserve. This shift is not only a fundamental moral imperative but also a practical and cost-effective solution. According to a study titled ‘Relational caring and contact after treatment: An evaluation study on criminal recidivism’ from ScienceDirect, relational care has been shown to reduce recidivism rates, suggesting that mandatory care could be effective in breaking the vicious cycle of recidivism (Schaftenaar et al., 2018). Another study published in Frontiers titled ‘Mandated treatment and its impact on therapeutic process and outcome factors’ also supports the idea that mandatory treatment can contribute to a decrease in criminal recidivism (Hachtel et al, 2019). Investing in targeted treatments, counseling, and effective rehabilitation programs, tailored specifically for individuals with mental health issues, can provide them with the necessary tools to confront their challenges and make positive choices. This approach recognizes that effective treatment and support can empower individuals to overcome their struggles and significantly reduce their likelihood of reoffending. Moreover, mandatory care reduces the financial burden associated with imprisonment. While initially, there may be increased costs to implement

Misinformation and disinformation or propaganda as psychological warfare to control the narrative with false information or misleading facts in a 3D illustration style. In recent years, the word “misinformation” has been widely misused and weaponized as a means to suppress free thought and speech. This paper aims to explore the historical instances where knowledge or practices once believed to be true and beneficial turned out to be harmful. It also examines how this phenomenon continues today with the weaponization of “misinformation” and the consequent impact on free speech and intellectual freedom. By examining the historical misuse of the term, as well as its impact on scientific discourse, this paper sheds light on the dangers of stifling intellectual curiosity and discouraging the search for better solutions through the labeling of misinformation. True progress in science and society is achieved through open dialogue, critical thinking, and constant research, and it is essential to challenge the misuse of the word “misinformation” to safeguard these principles. The word “misinformation” has become increasingly prevalent and controversial in recent years. While originally intended to identify false or misleading information, it has been misused as a tool to suppress dissenting opinions or alternative viewpoints. While our country was built on the whole concept of free thought, free speech and the pursuit of truth, the term misinformation has been improperly and recklessly used to stop the search for what is really true from that which may be orchestrated through propaganda. Herein lies a grave problem, insofar if this trend of using the word misinformation to stop progress continues, our nation and our entire world will quickly regress into an age that we may never recover from. Historical Examples of Medical Procedures and Scientific Discoveries By examining historical examples of medical procedures and scientific discoveries, showcasing the importance of evidence-based medicine, and highlighting the dangers of suppressing dissent and alternative viewpoints, we can begin to promote responsible use of the term to encourage critical thinking rather than stifling critically needed concerned voices altogether. To understand how the manipulation of the word “misinformation” can hinder progress, it is essential to examine historical examples. In the search for historical context, let’s consider the word lobotomy, once hailed as a groundbreaking treatment but eventually revealed to have harmful effects. Lobotomy was considered a normal practice primarily during the mid-20th century. The surgical procedure gained popularity in the 1940s and 1950s in the United States. The peak year for lobotomies in the US was in 1949, with 5,074 procedures performed. By 1951, over 18,608 individuals had been lobotomized in the country. While there were dissenting opinions about the practice all together, many physicians then were vehemently opposed for questioning the practice as those who performed it sincerely believed that not only did it perform a beneficial function, but that the “science was settled” on the issue. Those who fought against this deadly practice were thought to be spreading “misinformation.” Fortunately, during the 40s and 50s the word misinformation was not weaponized and public debate and ongoing scientific research weighed far more than certain doctors unchecked opinions and practices. As the understanding of mental health evolved and the devastating outcomes of lobotomies became more apparent, the practice fell out of favor. Today, the practice of bloodletting is rarely performed, and when it is, it is reserved for particular cases, such as certain autoimmune disorders or rare blood disorders where therapeutic phlebotomy is necessary for symptom management. Bloodletting was based on the ancient medical concept of humorism, which was developed by the Greeks in the 4th century B.C. This theory proposed that the body was filled with four basic substances, known as the four humors: blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile. Illness was thought to result from an imbalance in these humors, and bloodletting was seen as a way to restore this balance. Bloodletting persisted for over 2,000 years until the late 19th century. It’s clear that many patients were harmed by unnecessary blood loss and the risk of infection. It’s also been reported that the placebo effect or incidental benefits (such as reducing blood pressure in certain cases) may have led some patients to report improvements. Nonetheless, the process and practice has become outlawed even though it was once seen as the best treatment option available. Extensive research proved that this method was not the best method available. Fortunately, opposers of this method were given a voice to be heard. This is not to say that methods such as bloodletting and performing lobotomies were not welcomed during the years that they flourished performing these dangerous procedures. The point is that if any opposers were labeled as spreading misinformation, the practice would exist even now, causing grave danger to millions of people without consequence. The Importance of Evidence-Based Medicine: Scientific inquiry and continuous evaluation form the foundation of evidence-based medicine. The evolving nature of medical practices requires constant research and the replacement of outdated treatments. Labeling dissenting opinions as misinformation undermines the open discussion and critical analysis necessary for progress in healthcare. By encouraging skepticism and the constant search for better solutions, evidence-based medicine can flourish. Sadly, our focus has shifted to allow social media platforms to become the final say concerning nearly everything. And because of the pervasiveness and far-reaching arm of the major social media outlets sway, anything that they say, print or endorse in any way becomes sacrosanct. For example, Wikipedia is a free-content online encyclopedia, written and maintained by a community of volunteers, collectively known as Wikipedians, through open collaboration and using a wiki-based editing system called MediaWiki. Wikipedia has become the largest and most-read reference work in human history. Because of that, whatever label is printed on its site becomes the prevailing thought, even if it is not true. Dr. Robert Malone is the inventor of the mRNA technology. He has given testimony and science-based warnings on the use and abuse of the mRNA. Yet when you look up his name on Wikipedia it labels this distinguished scholar

For many years, the concept of Free Speech has faced challenges, but in recent times, we have witnessed a surge in blatant and illegal attacks on this fundamental right. Freedom of Speech is not just a privilege but a constitutional guarantee that has long defined the essence of being American. However, over the past three years, the denial of free speech has reached alarming heights. Numerous examples exist where individuals have been fired from their jobs simply for expressing their opinions on social media platforms. One such instance involves John Doe, who was terminated from his position after sharing his perspective on a contentious political issue. This raises the critical question: why are employers intruding into the private lives of their employees? When did it become their prerogative to police personal affairs that occur outside the workplace? Would it not seem absurd if employers dictated one’s love life, travel choices, dietary preferences, workout routines, or even religious beliefs? Unfortunately, we now live in an era where the assault on free speech is not only widespread but often deemed justified. In his book, “Crushed: Big Tech’s War on Free Speech,” Congressman Ken Buck powerfully articulates the dangers of preventing speech based on personal preference. He highlights the ominous control that Big Tech wields over vast communication platforms, enabling the stifling of freedom and the suppression of diverse ideas. This monopolistic influence poses a grave threat, as it can trample upon the rights of the majority for the benefit of a select few. As Congressman Buck eloquently states, this assault on freedom must not go unchallenged, lest it causes immense suffering for the most vulnerable members of society. I recall a time not too long ago when debates on a multitude of topics were celebrated. Both sides of an argument were passionately discussed and dissected, whether at prestigious institutions like Yale, Harvard, and Stanford, or even in preparatory schools like Kingswood Oxford, Loomis Chaffe, and Choate. The hallmark of a civilized society rested on the ability to engage in reasoned discourse, weighing the pros and cons of different perspectives. However, during the pandemic, merely posing questions regarding appropriate protocols or alternative treatment options led to immediate cancellation or de-platforming. Such actions not only violated our protected right to free speech but also stripped individuals of their humanity, reducing them to mere automatons. Sadly, the government remained passive, as this erosion of dignity unfolded before our eyes. The consequences of inaction on this issue are grave and far-reaching. It is imperative that our leaders address these challenges without delay. We cannot afford to wait any longer. The time to act is now. Our society must reclaim the spirit of open dialogue, respectful disagreement, and the free exchange of ideas. Let us heed the words of Congressman Buck and acknowledge that the vitality of our democracy hinges on protecting and preserving the sacred right of Free Speech for all. Only then can we truly ensure a society that values both unity and diversity. Unchecked Infringement on Free Speech: The Dire Consequences We must recognize that everything that we have seen and experienced with censorship and de-platforming has be a direct threat to democracy. If we allow the gross infringement on free speech to go unchecked, we open the door to a range of alarming outcomes that could spiral out of control. Three key areas that would be significantly impacted are discrimination against targeted groups, the rise of authoritarianism, and the stifling of creativity and artistic expression. Unchecked infringement on free speech in these areas not only undermines the principles of equality, democracy, and artistic expression but also poses a significant threat to the fabric of our society. It is crucial to recognize the potential consequences and take urgent action to safeguard this essential right. By protecting free speech, we can foster inclusivity, accountability, and a flourishing environment that encourages diverse voices, empowers marginalized communities, and celebrates the transformative power of creativity. Preserving Free Speech: Action Steps for Empowered Individuals In the face of an ongoing assault on free speech, it may feel daunting to imagine moving closer to a society that truly values this essential right. However, there are meaningful steps that individuals and groups can take to protect and promote free speech. Here is a list of actionable measures: Preserving free speech necessitates active participation from each and every one of us. By taking these meaningful action steps, we can collectively build a society that upholds this fundamental right, fosters democratic flourishing, and nurtures an environment where diverse ideas can thrive. Let us stand united in defense of free speech, working towards a future where the freedom to express oneself is safeguarded for generations to come. Dr. Aaron Lewis, December 14, 2023 Reference: Buck, K. (2020). Crushed: Big Tech’s War on Free Speech. Regnery Publishing.

Reclaiming Privacy in the Era of Surveillance In a world where technological advancements have revolutionized our lives, the balance between individual privacy and government surveillance hangs precariously. The rapid evolution of surveillance technologies and the insatiable appetite for data collection have thrust the issue of privacy invasion into the spotlight. While some may argue that the convenience and benefits of modern technology justify sacrificing privacy, the truth is that our most valued freedoms are gradually eroding. This blog aims to explore the profound implications of unchecked surveillance, examine the government’s complicity in these practices, and present viable strategies to reclaim our fundamental rights to freedom and privacy. To fully comprehend the consequences of unchecked surveillance, it is essential to delve into the far-reaching implications. Privacy serves as the bedrock of our constitutionally protected freedoms, ensuring personal autonomy, protecting individuals against unwarranted state interference, and upholding the dignity of every human being. However, with the pervasive surveillance employed by both government agencies and tech giants, our once secure sanctuary is being relentlessly invaded. Unrestrained access to personal information can result in dire outcomes, including the erosion of civil liberties such as freedom of speech, as individuals are forced to self-censor for fear of reprisal. The manipulation of political and social narratives, exemplified by the Cambridge Analytica scandal, exposes the power of exploiting user data to influence voter behavior. Moreover, the emergence of a dystopian monitoring state akin to George Orwell’s “1984” poses a direct threat not only to individual freedom but also to the very foundations of democracy. While privacy is unequivocally enshrined in constitutional protections, the government’s failure to safeguard this essential right is disconcerting. Instances abound where government agencies have turned a blind eye to the encroachment of tech giants into our private lives, actively contributing to the erosion of privacy. Possible motives behind this negligence include the government’s own reliance on tech corporations’ data for national security purposes as well as the lack of political will to regulate these powerful entities due to their economic influence and extensive lobbying efforts. Although there have been sporadic punitive measures, such as the Federal Trade Commission’s imposition of a $5 billion penalty on Facebook for privacy violations, these actions merely scratch the surface of the systemic issue at hand. Unraveling the motives behind the government’s inaction reveals a complex web of influences and vested interests that perpetuate the surveillance state. The interplay between big tech corporations and government agencies forms the foundation of a formidable surveillance apparatus. Understanding the motivations that drive tech giants’ insatiable thirst for personal data and their willingness to cooperate with government surveillance initiatives is crucial. By examining the intricate dynamics among corporations, lobbyists, and government officials, we can uncover who benefits the most from these alliances and the potential consequences for public liberty. To address these challenges and reclaim our freedom and privacy, a multifaceted approach is necessary. Minimizing surveillance and cultivating a culture that values and respects individual privacy is of utmost importance. This involves advocating for stronger privacy laws, supporting businesses that prioritize data privacy, embracing privacy-enhancing technologies, and fostering digital literacy to educate ourselves and others about our digital rights and security. Government’s Negligence in Protecting Privacy Despite the clear constitutional protections for privacy, the government has displayed a disconcerting complacency when it comes to preserving this essential right. Numerous instances of government agencies turning a blind eye to the encroachment of tech giants into our private spheres have precipitated the rapid erosion of privacy. To enhance the analysis of the government’s role in this issue, it is crucial to delve deeper into the specific actions and policies that contribute to this negligence. One significant factor that contributes to the government’s reluctance to protect privacy is its reliance on tech corporations’ data for national security purposes. In an era where information is deemed crucial for safeguarding the nation, the government may view the extensive surveillance capabilities of tech giants as an indispensable asset. Consequently, this reliance can overshadow the need to prioritize individual privacy rights, as the perceived benefits of surveillance appear to outweigh the risks. Furthermore, the lack of political will to regulate powerful tech entities can also be attributed to the government’s negligence in protecting privacy. These corporate behemoths wield significant economic influence and engage in extensive lobbying efforts, which can shape the political landscape in their favor. This imbalance of power makes it challenging for the government to enact comprehensive regulations that would curtail unchecked surveillance practices. Despite sporadic instances of punitive action, such as the Federal Trade Commission’s imposition of a $5 billion penalty on Facebook for privacy violations, these actions fail to address the systemic issue at its core. Unraveling the motives behind the government’s inaction reveals a complex network of influences and vested interests that perpetuate the surveillance state. This intricate web of relationships between the government, tech corporations, and influential lobbyists creates a challenging environment for effective privacy protection measures. To comprehensively address this issue, it is essential to critically examine the specific actions, policies, and political dynamics that contribute to the government’s negligence. Only by understanding these factors can we develop effective strategies to reclaim our fundamental rights to freedom and privacy. Big Tech’s Control and Government Collaboration The intricate interplay between big tech conglomerates and government agencies has laid the groundwork for a formidable surveillance apparatus. This delves into the motivations driving tech giants’ insatiable thirst for personal data and their willingness to align with government surveillance initiatives. By examining the complex dynamics among corporations, lobbyists, and government officials, we seek to uncover who benefits most from these alliances and the potential consequences for public liberty. As Senator Josh Hawley elucidates in his book, “The Tyranny of Big Tech,” these behemoths—Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Apple—have accumulated an unprecedented wealth of personal data, transforming from symbols of American innovation and freedom into techno-oligarchies wielding immense economic and political power. Hawley argues that these mega-corporations represent one of the most severe threats to American liberty

The inherently rigged nature of the current political system becomes apparent when we consider the issue of restrictive ballot access. This examination reveals a clear prioritization of the interests of the two major parties, which severely hampers the ability of third-party candidates to compete on an equal footing. The challenges faced by third-party candidates shed light on the entrenched biases within the political system. These obstacles include stringent signature requirements, which create significant burdens and increase the risk of disqualification. Additionally, the exclusion of third-party candidates from debates further hampers their ability to gain visibility and engage with voters. Such disparities underscore a clear bias towards the two major parties, actively perpetuating a system that favors their dominance and limits the democratic options available to voters. Furthermore, an examination of the media landscape uncovers another aspect of the systemic bias against third-party candidates, highlighting the immense power wielded by major party influence over public perception and discourse. The cherished right to cast a vote — a privilege that many take as a given — is not as secure as we might like to believe. A quiet battle is being waged, one that has the potential to undermine the fundamental freedom of choice within our political landscape. While our society continues to make progress in numerous areas, the political sphere seems to be caught in a troubling paradox. The principle of choice, so valued in other aspects of our lives, is being subtly eroded by forces intent on limiting the range of options presented to voters. This restriction not only suppresses the diversity of voices in our governance but also challenges the democratic ethos we hold dear. Reflecting on the history of civil rights in America, one finds a narrative punctuated by struggle and advancement, a tale of a society grappling with its own principles and ideals. Strikingly, the patterns of this past are resurfacing in our present day, with the issue of fair ballot access emerging as the latest battlefield in the ongoing quest for equality. The echoes of history are impossible to ignore. Just as the egregious condition of slavery was once overlooked by the majority, the current issue of ballot access restrictions is suffering a similar fate. Slavery, a blight on the nation’s conscience, was endured and ignored by the greater population, until the voices of abolitionists grew too loud to dismiss. The fight for emancipation was long and arduous, but it ultimately led to a significant shift in societal norms and legislation. Today, we find ourselves at a similar crossroads. The right to vote, much like the right to freedom, is not just a legal entitlement but a moral imperative. It forms the crux of our democracy, anchoring our society in the principles of equal representation and individual liberty. Yet, this fundamental right is being subtly undermined, with unequal access to the polls threatening to silence the voices of many. As we confront this new frontier of civil rights, we must remember the lessons of our past. The struggle for fair ballot access is more than a political issue; it’s a moral test of our commitment to the principles of democracy and equality. Just as the abolition of slavery required collective effort and awareness, so too does this contemporary challenge demand our attention and action. Ensuring that all citizens have equal access to the polls and a fair chance to make their voices heard is not merely a legislative concern, but a responsibility we all share in our pursuit of a truly democratic society. It is high time we turned our collective attention towards this pressing issue. By confronting the undemocratic nature of ballot access restrictions, we can safeguard the core principles of our democracy, fostering a political environment that truly celebrates choice, diversity, and the unrestricted will of its people. Restrictions on Third Party Candidates Within the intricate mosaic of American polticis, third-party candidates have often been relegated to the sidelines, subjected to stark restrictions and limitations that infringe upon their civil rights. This grim reality underscores the importance of the fight for equal ballot access, a struggle integral to the health and vitality of our democracy. The top five largest third parties in the United States — the Libertarian Party, Green Party, Constitution Party, Democratic Socialists of America, and the Party for Socialism and Liberation — serve as testament to the diverse political perspectives that exist beyond the well-known Democratic and Republican parties. Yet, these parties remain largely invisible to the average American voter, their voices muffled by the overpowering chorus of the two-party system. For over fifty years, this two-party duopoly has meticulously worked to suppress the voice of third parties. By monopolizing media coverage and fostering an “out of sight, out of mind” mentality, they’ve managed to convince the average citizen that no other viable options exist. This manipulation not only undermines the principle of fair competition but also deprives voters of the opportunity to explore and engage with a broader range of political ideologies. The stark injustices and prejudices against third-party candidates are clear indications that the battle for equal ballot access is far from over. To foster a truly democratic society, we must ensure that all Americans — irrespective of their political affiliations — have an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and make their voices heard. This is a fundamental right. As such, it is incumbent upon us to tirelessly address this issue, striving for a more inclusive political landscape that truly reflects the diversity and dynamism of our citizenry, not the controlling class. In every election, third-party candidates often face a steep uphill climb, hindered by restrictions that their counterparts in the Democratic and Republican parties are spared. This disparity, though widely accepted by many Americans, is fundamentally unjust and undermines the democratic principles upon which our nation was founded. One of the most glaring examples of such bias is the exorbitant signature requirement imposed on third-party candidates. Depending on the state, these candidates may need