This is one of the most common tactics in the tyranny playbook, and one that readers should familiarize themselves with. As with my previous article, emphasis going forward is my own.
The method is simple: Rather than escalating against the political underclass directly—which can in-fact steel them as adversaries, and typically entails problematic optics or logistics—bureaucrats instead threaten the rights and liberties of prominent third-party institutions; In an attempt to isolate and starve out those they wish to oppress.
Coercing larger businesses is much easier for the ruling class, since their victims are restricted in their ability—and willingness—to engage in opposition.
Illiquid investments mean they can't easily pick up and leave to somewhere safer. They have little anonymity, due to registration laws and the forward-facing nature of business. Large transactions through state-controlled financial systems means it is trivial for agents to seize their funds. Most importantly, those targeted like this have unclear incentives for accepting the risk on behalf of outside dissenters, and will often comply with demands long before they incur the government's wrath.
Insidiously, this compliance is then presented as evident support or advocacy for the state's dominion, casting their victims as enemies to the libertarian cause. Then, like Stockholm Syndrome, those so targeted often do rationalize their abuse in this way.
It's effectively a form of domestic state terrorism.
Communist onlookers often remark on these incidents with mocking tones, disingenuously arguing that boycotts are consistent with free market ideals. In isolation, that is true. What they miss, or more aptly ignore, is the preceding catalyst. In this instance, the example is relatively clear and public.
Consider that this is not always the case.
What's worse, others—some even claiming to be "fellow libertarians," once upon a time—turn to advocating their own alternative set of tyrannies, coercing businesses to act in their favor. This quickly turns our economy into an anti-capitalist tug-of-war, on which the state grows fat and powerful.
It should be fairly obvious that there are no reasonable grounds for government litigation against GoFundMe. Jim Watson even tacitly concedes this, in the "long shot" remark. I speculate that he hopes publicly threatening it through a state "news" outlet—if you weren't previously aware, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is a federal government organization—is sufficient.
We can first acknowledge, then set aside, the concept of state lawsuit as ethically absurd; It holds no rightly-owned property over which to sue; Tax spending is expropriative.
Furthermore, by "our" government's own decree, Canadians have a protected right to protest its tyranny—or "this activity," as they report it—and thus gathering funds on that behalf should not be a punitive offense. Even the declared consideration of this by any bureaucrat should be absolutely terrifying to anyone who calls himself a progressive or libertarian.
Even so, take note of the gentle wording used. Legal action. Options. Recourse. The last of these directly implies wrongful action on GoFundMe's part; Misleading, at best.
The problem, of course, is that our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is ultimately just words on paper, penned by a regime that is not truly bound by its promises to abstain from despotism. It may help, culturally, but it is demonstrably insufficient in lieu of the state's monopoly on material power. They can, and do, violate it. With impunity.
When you scrutinize the news enough, you start to pick up on the astro-turf slogans. Do you see the one here? Maybe not yet.
For those who live in Ottawa, and are annoyed—rather than invigorated—by honking or the smell of diesel outside of their homes, consider the possibility that this is due to government blockades restricting more direct routes to their monuments and parliamentary buildings. Consider that the "snarling traffic" might also be largely caused by this, as well. The ruling class often seizes your assets for the express purpose of facilitating its tyranny, and protecting itself at the expense of peaceful actors.
Calling it "management" or "containment" doesn't diminish this underlying reality.
Their exorbitant spending is then rhetorically appropriated as being somehow caused by those the state is oppressing. We see this, perhaps most clearly, with state border control. However, that's a topic for a future article.
Keep this "million dollars a day" figure in mind, as we go on.
Obviously.
Anonymity is an important tool for the political underclass. The last thing society needs, are state authorities rounding people up for their financial contributions to an "illegal" protest. As a relevant aside, this is why limited liability is in-fact a libertarian ideal, rather than a byproduct of state rule, as some misguided pundits believe.
It's worth noting that the Trudeau administration has already pushed for measures against online anonymity via Bill C-10, but we'll also have to discuss that more another time. So much to discuss.
Again, this should unsettle you. We're not talking about a hat on a statue here, we're talking about a state institution "idly commenting" on the anonymity of those it opposes. How did their analysis even identify the use of pseudonyms? Unless they are anonymous monikers—such as my own—one might guess that they're either lying, or tracking individual people down through government records.
Whatever the case, this is actually disturbing, and hardly so ephemeral as cuss words thrown against the "dear leader."
Million dollars a day, was it?
The affluent bureaucrats are always highly concerned whenever some institution outside of their control is exchanging assets. To those who see the hypocrisy in this excerpt, but nothing more, I caution you to look deeper. It's worse than that. Again, tax-financing is expropriative. The funds are coercively seized from peaceful actors, regardless of their support, apathy, or dissent. It is not at all the parallel of voluntary donation. Much less, that which is gathered for protest against tyranny, instead of the “containment” thereof.
When the talking heads proselytize about how many of the mandates are provincial policy, implying that the Freedom Convoy is somehow improperly targeted, just remember how very, very supportive the federal government has been to their bureaucratic colonies.
There's a prominent silver lining amid these propagandistic storm clouds, though.
Optimistically, this is a tacit admission that the rulers don't really know much, and are desperately scrambling for ways to end the protest. Thus, it is already shown to be effective. If it continues, as it should, there is hope for liberty.
This article is licensed under CC0. Why?
Unlike many of my peers in the libertarian space, I will not ask that you withhold your comments or curtail your speech. To the contrary, I recommend that you give your honest criticisms. While you're at it, write an angry letter to your local politician, ideally demanding that he quit and stop stealing people's stuff.
Was this article insightful, entertaining, or agreeable? If it was, please consider helping me recoup my costs, and incentivizing future works like this one, by sharing some money with me. Because, unlike the state, I don't steal what I earn.
You can also help me out a lot by sharing this article with your friends and family. Just stick it in their faces until they surrender to your will, and read it.
Here are a couple ways you can give me money:
My Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/btrbt
My Etherium Wallet (I think): 0x4FB20420D507C7f9b897c1bDb56A8Aa46d425719
Disclosure: This article has been edited from a prior version, to clarify speculation on the author’s part, regarding anonymous monikers.