Extremism and Liberty

"Tonight, our country, that which we stand for and all we hold dear, faces a grave and terrible threat. This violent and unparalleled assault on our security will not go undefended...or unpunished. Our enemy is an insidious one, seeking to divide us and destroy the very foundation of our great nation. Tonight, we must remain steadfast. We must remain determined. But most of all, we must remain united."
--Adam Sutler (V for Vendetta)

It's difficult to imagine that this administration doesn't lose more political support each time it opens its mouth. Last night Biden spoke like a geriatrically challenged version of Adam Sutler, declaring that supporters of Donald Trump and the Make America Great Again ideology constitute a "threat to our country."

If one infers that those who voted for Trump in 2020 comprise this group, then it numbers at least 70 million.

The president's press secretary added the e-word. The president, she said, sees this group as "an extreme threat to our democracy."

Moreover, "when you are not with where the majority of Americans are, then, you know, that is extreme. That is an extreme way of thinking."

Setting aside questions involving what precisely in MAGA ideology is inconsistent with the views of the majority of Americans, or, for that matter, whether MAGA ideology itself doesn't actually constitute the majority viewpoint, any American with a modicum of grounding in US history understands that our founding ancestors designed a government that protected the rights of those who not aligned with the whims of majority opinion. 

If the press secretary's definition of extremism is employed, then opinions inconsistent with the majority are to be protected from tyrannical treatment. Government is legally barred from acting against 'extremists'--again defined as those who think differently from the 'majority.' 

My sense is that Americans still understand this founding principle well enough they are are turned off by the caustic 'extremist' claims of leftists.

Not Adding Up

There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear
--Buffalo Springfield

Something doesn't add up about Nancy Pelosi's provocative trip to Taiwan. Leftists have long expressed open admiration of the Chinese communist system. They have been silent on blatant human rights violations of the CCP for years, including the use of concentration camps for dissenters.

More recently, leftists sat idly by during the pro-freedom and independence protests in Hong Kong in the summer of 2019--protests that were ultimately put down by the Chinese government.

Now we are to believe that leftists like Pelosi are suddenly on the side of people seeking self-determination? Not only does this fly in the face of their affection for the Chinese model, but any reasoning mind realizes full well that leftists believe in authoritarian rule and collectivism, not self-determination. 

As the Chinese military incircles the island to conduct live fire 'military exercises,' one has to wonder what is really going on here.

Physics of Freedom

Always searching for the real thing
Living like it's far away
Just leave all the madness in yesterday
You're holding the key
When you believe it
--Michael McDonald

Interesting article discussing the physical, rather than philosophical, aspects of freedom. It has a system dynamics flavor to it.

The author proposes that for systems to persist over time, they must freely evolve to permit currents of resources to flow through the system.

When these flows are forcibly restrained, then adaptation is more difficult.

An optimistic implication of this view is that authoritarian states that seek to restrain freedom by censorship, coercion, intimidation, and other means are doomed to failure. People will eventually throw off those constraints in order to adapt.

Perhaps a better label for this concept is 'an evolutionary theory of freedom.'

Still Radical

Benjamin Martin: May I sit with you?
Charlotte Selton: It's a free country. Or at least it will be.
--The Patriot

Two hundred and forty-six years after our nation's first law, its founding principle of liberty remains radical. From his early days of social existence, man has been tempted to surrender liberty to earthly rulers. As God warned Samuel, doing so invites despotism.

In 1776, the United States startled the world when it chose to 'throw off' that despotism in pursuit of self-determination. Since then, the authoritarians have been seeking to extinguish that flame of liberty and reclaim their power.

Events of the past few years suggest to some that the tyrants have made progress.

Personally, I prefer to believe that the opposite is happening. People tend to wake up when their freedoms are being stolen. 

Nearly a quarter of a millennium ago, we learned that when enough people wake up, they--the true radicals--have the capacity to push back.

Lambs Among Wolves

Do not answer fools according to their folly, lest you become a fool yourself.
--Proverbs 26:4

In today's gospel from Luke 10, Jesus laments that "the harvest is abundant but the laborers are few." So he appoints 72 'others' to head out to towns ahead of his visits to evangelize--to prepare the way. 

He warns that he is sending them "like lambs among wolves." Many, he knows, will not be receptive. In fact, they may be downright hostile.

For those who are not receptive, Christ advised his evangelists not to dwell on it. Rather, he tells them to shake off the dust of those places from their feet and walk away.

Today, God wants his world back. Those 72 'others' represent us. We are to go forth, like lambs among wolves, on a journey toward spiritual perfection that ends at the gates of heaven. Along the way, we are to try to persuade others to join us on the journey.

Many will react with indifference and hostility. In those cases, Jesus tells us not to engage them on their terms. If we do so, then, as the proverb suggests above, we risk becoming entrapped in their foolishness.

Instead, shake their dust from your feet and move on.

Speech and the Despot Franchise

"You can break a man's skull. You can arrest him. You can throw him into a dungeon. But how do you control what's up here? How do you fight an idea?"
--Sextus (Ben-Hur)

Escalating pushback against free speech reminds us once more of just how radical the notion of liberty is. The history of the world has been dominated by those who desire to dominate. Authoritarians who seek to control others through use of force.

Our founding ancestors developed a constitutional framework that proposed otherwise. At the top of the list was speak and write with no government interference.

Authoritarians despise this freedom to no end. They understand that minds exposed to alternative viewpoints threaten the despot franchise.

As current events demonstrate, statists will stop at nothing to silence dissent.

Disinformation Governance Board

Funny how I blind myself
I never knew
If I was sometimes played upon 
Afraid to lose
--Talk Talk

In what could hardly be a more overt validation of George Orwell's 1984 message, the federal government has created a 'Disinformation Governance Board" under the Department of Homeland Security. The objective is to 'police' what is deemed (by the overseers, of course) to be 'misinformation' or 'disinformation.'

The censorship drumbeat among progressives has reached a fevered pitch, pushed over the top by Elon Musk's buyout of Twitter (TWTR) announced last week.

How the establishment of such an agency is not a direct violation of the First Amendment is beyond me.

 At the same time, we should also note that this is not the first time the feds have sought to thwart free speech through formal structure. John Adams' Alien and Sedition Acts, Lincoln's muzzling of unfriendly press during the Civil War, Wilson's Committee on Public Information and Sedition Act of 1918, information shapers in FDR's 'brain trust,' et al.

To borrow Locke and Jefferson's term, this 'train of abuses' has been running in fits and starts since the ink was newly dry on the Bill of Rights. And in the most noteworthy authoritarian regimes in history...

I hope this is challenged in the courts. Meanwhile it will be interesting to see how much legitimacy this agency acquires from the people. 

Stated differently, widespread rejection of the Disinformation Governance Board by the citizenry could bury the censors and vault awareness of liberty to levels not seen in some time.

Love and Liberty

No more running down the wrong road
Dancing to a different drum
Can't you see what's going on
Deep inside your heart?
--Michael McDonald

Leonard Read's Students of Liberty is a thoughtful compilation of remarks made to students at Pitt in 1950. I found several points particularly interesting.

Read proposes that the history of the world is largely a history of violence. These pages have proposed similarly. Some violence is direct, such as war, while other violence is indirect, such as the violence that manifests under the guise of democracy. For example, when people vote to raise taxes to pay for a particular program, those voters are principals of violence. They contract with the strong arm of government to shake down others for resources to fund their pet projects.

The alternative to violence, Read suggests, is love. Love refers to the kindly virtues in human relations such as charity, integrity, and not doing unto others what you would not have them do unto you. This is, of course, Christ's central message. 

If we are to trends of violence toward love, then Read asserts that liberty is required. Love "generates and grows among free men; only with great difficulty among men ruled by the principles of violence. As violence begets violence so does one personal act of kindness beget another." (28) 

How does liberty grow? Read dismisses approaches such as marketing campaigns, subsidized instruction, and fear mongering programs. Instead, he advocates for self-motivated learning and improvement. Only through personal search for truth and leading by example will liberty grow.

Read admits that his 'one-individual-at-a-time' notion lacks the speed of other, more aggressive proposals, but he argues that the Students of Liberty approach is the only one that will produce durable and lasting change.

Here we are 70+ years later, and most of the approaches that Read downplayed have been tried with marginal success. Perhaps it is time to put Read's proposal to work.

I personally plan to.

Burying Liberty...Again

"Why should I trade one tyrant 3000 miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away? An elected legislature can trample a man's rights as easily as a king can."

--Benjamin Martin (The Patriot)

Judge Nap rails against the unconstitutional seizing of Russian property, the freezing of Russian bank accounts, and the barring of contractual trade with Russian partners--all done under the guise of sanctions imposed after the Ukraine invasion. These sanctions violate both the Fourth Amendment, which requires warrants specific to place and person before property can be detained, and the Fifth Amendment, which requires due process before property can be expropriated.

A common response to charges such as these is that the Constitution only protects US citizens and not foreigners. This is wrong. The wrongheadedness of this line of thought is revealed by considering the Constitution's conceptual basis.

The formation of the United States is grounded in natural law. Natural law posits that all men are created equal at birth, meaning that we all have equal rights to life, to the freedom to pursue our interests as long as we do not forcibly intrude on the pursuits of others, and to the property that our pursuits might generate.

These natural rights are granted to each of us by our creator and as a condition of our humanity. They are unalienable, meaning that we are free to exercise our natural rights unencumbered by government interference. This is the founding principle of liberty. 

Government's sole just purpose is to protect our natural rights. It can only interfere in an individual's pursuits when it is suspected that a person has forcibly compromised the natural rights of someone else. However, government must carefully follow just legal processes including those specified by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

If the natural law basis of the Constitution is to be upheld, then it makes no sense to limit its application citizens of the United States. Americans were not the only people born to the 'self-evident' truth that all men were created equal. All have been endowed with the same set of natural rights. When government tramples on the natural rights of any individual, it has done wrong.

As the Judge notes at the end of his column: "War is the health of the state and the graveyard of liberty." Actions of the US government taken under the auspices of the Ukraine conflict demonstrate once again America's lack of leadership in championing the very principles upon which our nation was founded.

War finds the United States burying liberty once again.

Grift Horse Gone

You've been around all night
And that's a little long
You think you've got it right
But I think you've got it wrong
--Toni Basil

After criticizing the state's GOP, The Walt Disney Company (DIS) is in the process of having its longstanding favorable legislative treatment in the state of Florida revoked. Established more that five decades ago, the Reedy Creek legislation granted Disney the privilege of operating its amusement park properties outside of Orlando in a 'special district' with no local government oversight. 

The special status allows Disney to issue its own tax exempt muni bonds as well as build new developments without obstacles such as local zoning laws. Disney's competitors in the state have not been granted similar favor. For example, Universal Studies Florida, which operates its own entertainment facilities adjacent to Disney, does not have Reedy Creek-like special status.

Increasingly, corporations have been weighing in on the left wing side of political issues such as the Chinese takeover of Hong Kong, the Black Lives Matter movement, election fraud, et al. Until now, their political commentary has not been met with much push back.

Unfortunately for Disney, Florida operates differently, boasting a strong GOP party presence highlighted by a fearless governor grounded in constitutional principles. This creates an environment where state officials are alert for opportunities to surface and remove grift.

Disney's political commentary put the process in motion on Reedy Creek. Both Florida houses have voted to end the company's special district status. Governor DeSantis is expected to sign the legislation.

It appears that Disney execs looked the grift horse in the mouth once too often. 

no position

Private Placement

Keep off the path
Beware of the gate
Watch out for signs that say
'Hidden driveways'
--The B-52s

Leftists are in a quandary as they to preserve their speech controlled, safe space, status quo on Twitter (TWTR). By dissing Elon Musks buyout offer and, instead, developing a 'poison pill' to stave off hostile takeover, the company's board and management demonstrate that they are not running the company for shareholders. Instead, TWTR constitutes their play pen for social engineering and speech control.

Some progressives will be tempted to label Twitter a 'public utility' that is in need of government control and perhaps outright ownership. But they can't do that without running afoul of the Second Amendment. Heck, these pages have argued that Twitter's dependence on government resources already makes it a government-sponsored entity subject to 2A restrictions on censoring.

What progressives really need is someone from their camp who has deep pockets and is willing to outbid Musk to take TWTR private.

Why Silence Speech?

"You can break a man's skull. You can arrest him. You can throw him into a dungeon. But how do you control what's up here? How do you fight an idea?"
--Sextus (Ben-Hur)

Why would people seek to silence speech they don't like? Several explanations are plausible.

One is that would-be censors simply can't handle the psychic pain of disagreement. Rather than reason with dissenters or simply walking away, they instead attempt to muzzle the unpleasantries.

Censors might also fear that those listening to dissenting voices are unable to think for themselves. When listening to independent viewpoints, those uncritical thinkers might believe what they hear even though, in the minds of the censors, that speech is obviously 'disinformation.' Because the censors believe that they have been enlightened to understand what the truth actually is, it is their duty to silence the disinformation and flood the pipes with 'facts.'

Of course, it is also possible that the censors fully understand that others are capable of thinking for themselves. They fear that, instead of blindly accepting the party line, listeners to opposing viewpoints will conclude that truth lies elsewhere--and that the truth will set them free. To keep people in the dark, censors seek to keep the light of truth switched off.

Finally, censoring is an essential tool of the propagandist. The central objective of propaganda is to undermine sense of truth. As successful propaganda campaigns have demonstrated, censoring seeks to keep truth out while lies are delivered in well insulated echo chambers. 

Censoring helps to keep the signal of the propagandists' message high compared to the noise of the truth.

Freak Tweets

All that pressure got you down
Has your head spinning all around
--Chic

Elon Musk has upped his ante on the Twitter saga (TWTR) by offering to buy the entire company for $54.20/share, or about $41.4 billion. That constitutes a 20% premium over Thursday's close.

Not surprisingly, leftists extended their previous freak out over the prospect of losing control of the platform to someone who differs from them ideologically. Matt Taibbi discusses some of their absurd arguments.

Many leftists trotted out the wealth card, railing against the idea of a rich person buying/controlling a media outlet. Ironically, several of these screeds were floated by people affiliated with the Washington Post, a newspaper by Amazon (AMZN) founder Jeff Bezos. Bezos has a net worth north of $150 billion. 

What leftists are saying, of course, it that it's ok to own a media company if you're a rich leftist. Otherwise...

More irony streamed from leftists screaming that Musk's bid should spark more government regulation of media companies. Follow the logic: We need regulation...to prevent rich people from controlling our channels of communication.

It gets weirder. 

Another tranche of leftists complained that they are terrified that Musk will censor people less. One leftist tweeted, "He seems to believe that on social media anything goes. For democracy to survive, we need more content moderation, not less."

Although this is wholly consistent with previously shared survey data on censoring, I find myself pausing to let this train of thought sink in.

The most laughable reaction may have come from former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich--known for his forays into socialist drivel (e.g., here, here). Reich suggests that a Musk-led Twitter "wouldn't be accountable to anyone for facts, truth, science, or the common good." 

Censoring, you see, is for the common good. And, as we have witnessed over the past few years, it is the censors who determine what facts, truths, and science are fit for you to see. Media outlets must be held accountable--accountable to the censors.

Because he threatens their charade, the left must oppose and, if necessary, seek to destroy Musk.

Allegorically fitting on this Good Friday.

no positions

Musk v Twitter

"Let's take a vote. Who's for Eva Braun? Who wants to burn books? Who wants to spit on the Constitution of the United States of America? Anybody? All right. Now, who's for the Bill of Rights? Who thinks freedom is a pretty darn good thing? Come on, come on...let's see those hands. Who thinks we have to stand up to the kind of censorship they had under Stalin? All right! There you go, America! I love you!"
--Annie Kinsella (Field of Dreams)

Elon Musk recently accumulated a ~10% stake in Twitter (TWTR) and, as the largest single shareholder, has been named to the board of directors. An outspoken critic of Twitter's censorship policies, Musk has vowed to change things at the company.

Anti-free speech leftists are in freak out mode. They fear that the days of silencing dissent on their cherished social networking platform is coming to an end.

The differences between political parties on this issue are stark and growing. Not only do Democrats see little or no problem with censoring speech on Twitter...

...but they increasingly believe that government and tech companies should restrict freedom of speech online.

Although the left's proclivity to censor is becoming well-known, I'm still taken aback by data like this. Hard to believe this is America.

Here's hoping that Musk is up for the task at hand.

no positions

Treason Mania

"A toast...to high treason. That's what these men were committing when they signed the Declaration. Had we lost the war, they would have been hanged, beheaded, drawn and quartered, and--my personal favorite--had their entrails cut out and BURNED!"
--Benjamin Franklin Gates (National Treasure)

Glen Greenwald discusses the increased tendency to label people as 'traitors.' Out of concerns that treason term would be abused for political gain, the framers defined the limited scope of the crime in the Constitution itself. Per Article 3, Section 3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Treason was the only crime to be delineated in the Constitution. Why? Because the framers anticipated the grave danger of repressive governments seeking to silence criticism of, or opposition to, government policy by making it a capital crime.

Stated differently, they knew that liberal interpretations of treason would squash freedom of speech.

Given its constitutional limitations, treason has rarely been prosecuted in the United States, and less than 12 Americans have been convicted of treason in the nation's history.

Unfortunately, legal limitations have not prevented politicians and their media minions from shouting "Treason!" in the direction of those who behave in manners deemed unsupportive of consensus government policy.

Greenwald suggests that the Trump era elevated accusations of treason from a periodic transgression to a standard, reflexive way of criticizing political opposition. Indeed, the 'scandal' investigations that embroiled Trump's term can easily be seen as a protracted treason campaign. As Greenwald observes,

"The dominant narrative insisted that Trump and his allies were controlled by Moscow, subservient to the Kremlin, and were acting to promote Russian over American interests. That Trump was loyal not to the country that elected him but, instead, to an adversarial nation is something Democrats believe as an article of faith."

In reality, of course, many of those who have accused Trump of treason seem to possess little affinity for the fundamental institutions that underpin the United States and, in fact, seem hell bent on overthrowing them. As such, the Trump Treason narrative seems another ironic act of projection by this group. 

In any event, thanks to the Trump Treason years, "an entire generation has been trained to believe that 'treason' is the crime of expressing views that undermine Democratic Party leaders, diverge from the US security state, and/or dispute the consensus of the US corporate press."

Enter, now, the Ukraine conflict. Russia's invasion of Ukraine three weeks ago has taken treason mania to another level. (Although Greenwald calls it 'never-before-seen,' I suspect that we have, judging from what I've gathered about the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798, as well as the Wilson and FDR years). People suggesting that NATO expansion or any other factor beyond 'Putin' helped spark this conflict, or that Ukrainian borders are not vital enough interests to the US to warrant American involvement, are reflexively labeled 'traitors.'

Our founding ancestors lived this accusation. By speaking out against the King of England they were deemed traitors for voicing legitimate political opposition to the crown. They understood that the hallmark of tyranny is intolerance of voices that questioned official government policy, and to criminalize them if possible by equating dissenting voices with treason.

That's why the framers articulated the First Amendment, and a limited criminal scope for treasonous behavior. 

If you've been labeled a 'traitor' for dissenting from the party line on Ukraine, then find comfort that you're on the right side of history and of reason. Don't take the insults personally.

Better yet, pray for them.

Sanctions

"You arrogant ass. You've killed us!"
--Andrei Bonovia (The Hunt for Red October)

Over the past couple of weeks, Western governments have levied countless sanctions on Russia. In this context, sanctions are trade restrictions against a foreign country meant to punish that state for behavior deemed undesirable or bad. Russia's invasion of Ukraine sparked a deluge of sanctions ranging from curtailing or banning trade of particular commodities to freezing Russian bank accounts.

Sanctions aim at achieving various political objectives. One is to make the sanctioned country's population hurt to the point where it demands that its ruling regime cease enacting policies that outsiders find objectionable. Another objective is to weaken a country economically and financially so that it depletes resources for conducting belligerent activities. A third objective might be to weaken a state to the point where it can be overthrown by direct attack.

Despite their popularity, sanctions have marginal track records of success. One reason for this is that sanctions require solidarity among outside states in order to be effective. If only a few countries honor the restrictions, then the targeted state can reconfigure its supply chains toward other countries open to trade. The economic strain of sanctions can therefore be mitigated by developing alternative trade channels.

Sanctions also fail because they commonly strengthen resolve in sanctioned states. When freedom to trade with outsiders is forcibly restrained, then nationalistic tendencies increase among a country's population. Rather than creating animosity toward a domestic regime, sanctions often unify nations behind that regime.

It also seems lost on politicians that the economic penalties imposed by sanctions work both ways. When trade is restricted, the productivity benefits of specialization decline as countries diversify to become more self-sufficient. Less output is produced, and standard of living falls--not just for the sanctioned target, but for all countries--even for those who decline to honor the sanctions. In this manner, sanctions behave like tariffs. 

Who is hurt the worst? The world's poor. Because those at the bottom of the economic pyramid have the most to gain from specialization and trade, they become 'collateral damage' when prosperous countries impose trade sanctions. 

Consequently, sanctions themselves may be seen as acts of war. Although they are often levied in response to violence, sanctions are also violent in nature. They forcibly restrict trade--often in manners aimed at hurting others--particularly civilians. In this sense, trade sanctions bear similarity to wartime policies such as the Allied bombing of German and Japanese cities during WWII. 

While sanctions seem to satisfy popular urges to 'do something,' they possess capacity to do more damage than the bad behavior that those restrictions purportedly aim to punish.

Gas Pump

My friend the communist
Holds meetings in his RV
I can't afford his gas
So I'm stuck here watching TV
--Sheryle Crow

Rocketing gas prices are not just the result of bad energy policy, but bad policy overall. Monetary, fiscal, economic, trade, etc...

When government regulation obstructs peaceful cooperation and exchange, outcomes will be compromised.

War on Dissent

Trim life shadows flicker and fall
But you still can't turn away
Get up and run before you stall
Before the edges fray
--Ric Ocasek

Glenn Greenwald nicely frames the growing war on dissent. Dissent is disagreement with collective norms, particularly as they apply to politics. 

In any social environment, there will be institutional pressure to conform to norms, resulting in movement toward sameness in behavior (a.k.a. 'isomorphism'). Pressure to conform can be peaceful, taking the form of public opinion/persuasion or threat of exclusion from group activities.

However, pressure to conform can be coercive and involve force. For example, dissenters who gather in protest could be assaulted or arrested.

Greenwald suggests that government action against dissent, which is by definition forcible, has been increasing in western societies. Western societies are grounded in political frameworks that, at least on paper, tolerate dissent. In the US, for example, the Constitution guarantees that no law will prohibit or abridge freedom of speech.

Government-sponsored coercion against dissent is easy to spot in other countries. Thus, when Russia moves to freeze bank accounts of political dissenters, headlines in western countries howl in uproar.

However, when western countries do the same thing, as is currently happening, among other places, in Canada, the response is much more muted.

What Greenwald fails to mention is that this inconsistency is explainable by social identity theory. Simply stated, bad behavior by outsiders is punished or berated, while similar behavior by insiders is condoned or rationalized. 

As such, dissenting speech by insiders is legitimate protest to be respected, while dissenting speech by outsiders is disinformation or sedition to be silenced.

Greenwald's main point, however, is that war against dissent in western societies is increasing. He posits that  heads of western governments are stepping away from rule of law in favor of discretionary rule. By definition, discretionary rule is prone to inconsistency and hypocrisy, and requires violence to keep behavior in check.

Fortunately, citizens (read: voters) wake up politically when their freedoms are being trampled. Consequently, as western governments wage war on dissent, the dissenters appear to be organizing their own campaign aimed at ballot boxes.

Maple Distress

Kelly Youngblood: Don't take any shit from them Canucks. To them, you're just another wetback crossing the border to play their game.
Dean Youngblood: They'll never catch me.
Kelly Youngblood: Oh, they'll catch you.
--Youngblood

Canada is trying to outdo Australia in its beatdown of CV19 protests. Currently it is unleashing police and what appear to be paramilitary personnel to stop freedom convoy protests across the country.

The pandemic continues to bring out authoritarian rule at its worst.

Freedom Convoys

Sometimes the light's all shining on me
Other times I can barely see
Lately, it occurs to me
What a long, strange trip it's been
--Grateful Dead

Truckers around the world are joining Freedom Convoys. Originating in Canada, the conveys involve lines of semis driving slowly or stopped on highways in protest to COVID-related mandates. Some of the convoys stretch 20+ miles long.

As Rand Paul observes, Freedom Convoys reflect the time-honored American tradition of civil disobedience. "Peaceful protest, clog things up, make people think about the mandates."

Honk to show your support.