Skip to main content

Operation Cash Drop

Recent news reports released out of Santa Cruz, California, suggest that some members of the public are finally fed up with the ongoing lockdowns, mask mandates, and restrictions on our daily life. 

The latest news report covers a group of Santa Cruz shoppers attempting to patronize local grocery stores without wearing any masks. Asked to leave by employees, the mask-less shoppers reportedly insisted on making their purchases, insisting that they have a right to shop freely at any business open to the public, that the mask mandates are unlawful, and that the public is following orders by officials who don’t have the authority to issue them: 

“There is no law passed by the legislature requiring anyone to wear a mask. Contrary to popular opinion, any store open to the public cannot unlawfully discriminate by requiring customers to wear a mask.”

According to the report, in what has been called Operation Cash Drop, “The group is seen picking items, documenting the prices and placing money on the checkout counter, but the store refuses to help or serve them and takes the items back. After a few minutes of arguing, the group leaves.” 

According to Santa Cruz Police Chief Andrew Mills, who contends that private stores can refuse service, “This is not acceptable in our community and we’re going to take aggressive action when we have the opportunity to do so.” 

This is a complicated issue, to be sure. While there is no such Constitutional right to assemble or shop at any establishment, as that would necessitate an infringement upon the right of the owner of said establishment to refuse service, political precedent has clearly been set in denying these rights to business owners under given circumstances. Where a business owner is deprived of the right to deny service on the basis of ethnic, religious or other differences, those protections should, and can be reasonably assumed to, extend to those peacefully patronizing any business. Whereas we cannot deny the inherent right of self-ownership, and thus the right to withhold service, we must recognize that precedent has already made a terrible mess for us as a society, one which we will have to reconcile sooner or later. 

Short of people taking a stand like this in the face of tyranny and ostracism, we stand to lose our society along with the freedoms which once brought us together, along with the common decency which once made society tolerable. 

In addition to that, the political class has fooled the people into unquestioning compliance with unlawful mandates, bringing the political battle to us nearly everywhere we go. In order to remain in compliance, or in some cases in order to contribute to the cause, employers, employees and patrons alike generate the illusion of social consensus. 

In my estimation, where private enterprise no longer reserves the power to reject the government’s imposition, it is no longer private property; in effect, the business is already under the ownership of government, acting as agents on its behalf. In this way, private property rights have already been suspended for the benefit of the political agenda, precisely where they are of little benefit to the people — as evidenced by the present trend. 

In this way, that which is termed private enterprise has become yet another arm of the government, only under the familiar names of businesses. They can pretend that private property rights remain intact, along with freedom and free enterprise, but they are intact only insofar as they seek to preserve the status quo or selectively advance the political agenda. Put another way, private property rights are relevant to the political class only where those rights, in this case exercised privately by virtual agents of the government, stand to threaten liberty in some specific way. Mind you, these agents acting on behalf of government are not explicitly on the government payroll, but they are penalized for any refusal to obey that government's commands, regardless of their standing in law. In this way, they are truly agents of the government, and thus enemies to freedom and the public liberty. Remember, the virtue of government, insofar as it claims any virtue whatever, is in the goodness of law, not in the pronouncements of mortal men.

Where the people have conceded or acquiesced to their government because of the illusion, it is incumbent upon us to break ranks in support of the public liberty and that common decency which connects us. In this way, because of the manner in which we now interact as a species, and for the hope of a future of free and peaceful coexistence, it is incumbent upon us to risk upsetting the status quo, to remind our neighbors of what it means to be human, to come together to resist the government's imposition, and to endeavor to restore our way of life. In our further acquiescence, there is only more tyranny and less of humanity.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century.  Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties?  The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery.  It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession.  It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860. Likewise, it was a war that would witness a five-fold increase in the number of civilians employed by the federal government, as federal gove

The Evils of Facebook in the War Against Reason

Facebook is one of the greatest frauds whereby thoughtless friends share or tacitly embrace ideas which, in doing so, adds personal, relatable flair to messages being distributed from largely unknown reporters.  In effect, these friends then subject a wider community to the thought that since their friends are supportive of such ideas, then they ought to carry some merit or authenticity.  Facebook commits a great disservice to communication, serving primarily to subject meaningful dialogue to inherently-binary measures of laudability or contemptibility.  Whereas scientific evaluation serves to extract emotion, Facebook serves to embolden the fallacy-ridden supposition that fact follows fanfare, that truth trails trendiness, and that democratic participation (by way of “likes” or “shares”) can reliably support truth or sustainably produce virtue. What's more, Facebook and other social media sites tend also to further the fallacy that the last breath, or more precisely the f

Cullen Roche's Not So "Pragmatic Capitalism"

In his riveting new work Pragmatic Capitalism , Cullen Roche, founder of Orcam Financial Group, a San Diego-based financial firm, sets out to correct the mainstream schools of economic thought, focusing on  Keynesians, Monetarists, and Austrians alike. This new macroeconomic perspective claims to reveal What Every Investor Needs to Know About Money and Finance . Indeed, Roche introduces the layman to various elementary principles of economics and financial markets, revealing in early chapters the failed state of the average hedge fund and mutual fund operators -- who are better car salesmen than financial pundits, Roche writes --  who have fallen victim to the group think phenomenon, spawning the nearly perfect positive correlation to the major indexes, and thus, accounting for tax, inflation, and service adjustments, holistically wiping out any value added by their supposed market insight.  Roche also references popular studies, such as the MckInsey Global Institute's report whi