Some players’ jerseys, and the court itself, are emblazoned with “Black Lives Matter,” a militant Marxist organization whose leaders were trained by professional Marxists. “Group Economics,” another NBA-players-approved social justice message, is a clumsy euphemism for a command economy, a key feature of socialism. In a command economy a political elite makes the strategic economic decisions.

As F. A. Hayek noted in The Road to Serfdom, economic knowledge is widely dispersed, which is why socialism doesn’t work well for the people. In Socialism Sucks, Robert Lawson and Benjamin Powell make the same point, with many examples right up to current times. “Socialism Sucks” would fit nicely on Andre Iguodala’s jersey, but the league would frown on it. 

Years ago, the NBA struck a deal with China to broadcast NBA games in the Communist nation, a Marxist-Leninist dictatorship where “group economics” was part of the repressions that claimed millions of lives. The Chinese Communist Party does not believe that all lives matter, and does not allow free speech. Last October, when Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morley tweeted “Fight For Freedom. Stand With Hong Kong,” which was considered “inflammatory,” China promptly shut down the NBA games and the blackout continued as the league resumed its season this summer. 

After the British pulled out of Hong Kong in 1997, the former colony was supposed remain self-governing for 50 years. Free-market economics has prevailed in Hong Kong as in few other places, producing an economic powerhouse. The impatient Chinese are cracking down, eager to impose those “group economics” and clamp down on dissent and democracy. NBA fans might wait a while for “Stand With Hong Kong ” to appear on any player’s jersey.

The post NBA Players Touting “Group Economics” Should Rethink Their Collectivist Slogan appeared first on The Beacon.

What happened to Taylor was a tragedy, and one can make compelling arguments about the high cost of the war on drugs in America. But the Taylor situation is a poor example of alleged “systematic racism” and “police brutality.” Let’s get the facts straight.

Local officers were investigating Jamarcus Glover on charges of drug dealing. He was Taylor’s ex-boyfriend and they still had some sort of relationship. Taylor allowed Glover to receive mail at her apartment and he continued to frequent the apartment before traveling back to his drug-dealing headquarters. Officers obtained a search warrant for Taylor’s apartment and other locations associated with Glover. The warrant was approved by a magistrate as required by law. Much has been made that this was a “no knock” warrant, but evidence shows that the police did knock and announce before entering the apartment. Unbeknownst to police, Taylor had a new boyfriend with her. The boyfriend was armed. The boyfriend fired the first shot and hit a police officer. The police returned fire. The shots killed Taylor. No drugs or drug-trafficking evidence was found at the apartment.

Again, her death is a tragedy. But it was not murder. Murder is typically defined as “the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.” Here, police were where they were allowed to be, conducting an investigation, executing a search warrant, and were fired upon by the boyfriend. There was no malice in their actions directed toward Taylor. The one officer who was charged had retreated, taken cover, and fired blindly into the apartment. His reckless shots did not hit Taylor. He was charged with wanton endangerment because his actions manifested “extreme indifference to the value of human life.” This seems appropriate.

Due process was followed in this case. In Kentucky, prosecutors submit evidence to a 12-person grand jury. Nine of the 12 must determine whether there is probable cause for an indictment to go forward. Probable cause means that the accused most likely committed the crime. Probable cause is not a high standard. If prosecutors cannot get a true bill indictment when presenting witnesses in the grand jury with no defense lawyer objecting or cross-examining the witnesses, then the case must be seen for it is: weak and wanting. That’s what the demanded murder charge was in this case. The law simply did not support it.

We can lament the loss of Taylor’s life, but it is reckless to continue to claim she was murdered and a victim of some sort of invisible hand of oppression in America. People who continue to press this narrative are causing more innocents to be harmed, property to be destroyed, and our country to be ripped apart by strife. They need to stop.

The post Breonna Taylor Riots and More Irresponsible Rhetoric appeared first on The Beacon.

Undoubtedly, the result of the incident is devastating for the Blake family as they go through a difficult time. We can empathize with the pain felt by Blake’s parents and his children. We can hope that the doctors work a miracle and that he will be able to walk once again.

But, if we are honest with ourselves, the video and facts that are emerging show that Blake was shot not because of racism, but because of reckless decisions that left the police officers with little choice but to shoot.

According to news stories, it appears that police were called to the scene to because of a domestic incident. There are multiple versions floating around the web, but it appears that Blake was the source of the domestic incident. According to the Daily Mail, a woman had called police and told them that Blake was violating a court order that banned him from the premises and he had taken her keys and refused to give them back. Dispatch also informed officers that Blake had an active warrant for his arrest. The charge was felony sexual assault. Because of the warrant, officers had no choice but to try to arrest Blake when they found him.

We are not sure exactly how things unfolded, but police located Blake, ended up tussling with him, and deploying a taser. According to a statement from the Kenosha Professional Police Association, Blake fought with officers, put one cop in a headlock, was armed with a knife, and was tased twice with no effect.

What we see on the video is Blake stomping away from the police as they have guns drawn and are giving him commands to stop. Blake walks around the car where his hands are not visible to officers. Officers follow him, with weapons drawn, and implore him to comply. Blake does not. He then opens the car door and appears to reach in toward the floorboard. At this point, officers try to pull him back by his shirttail and multiple shots are fired. The state department of justice has confirmed that a knife was recovered from the floorboard of the car.

What were the police to do when Blake marched around the car and reached into it? Take a chance that Blake was not reaching for a gun or knife? When I saw Blake open the door and reach in, I knew he would be shot. What else could a reasonable officer do at that point? Blake put the police in a horrible position, and he has paid a substantial price. In the federal system and for the purpose of analogy, an agent may use lethal force “when the agent has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the agent or another person.” I’d say that the Kenosha officers easily meet this standard. Blake fought them, brushed off a taser, ignored commands, and appeared to reach for an object in his vehicle. He posed a danger to the cops and the many folks standing nearby and watching the incident.

The only issue I noticed with police conduct is the number of gunshots. But, if lethal force is allowed, officers must act until the threat is eliminated. But I do think it is proper for officials to investigate and obtain all relevant information about the shooting.

The fact that the Left, despite plain video and evidence of Blake’s atrocious and dangerous behavior, insist on making Blake a martyr to the social justice cause shows just how desperate they are to force events to fit a narrative. Celebrities and others are calling the shooting an attempted murder that merits criminal charges. Insane.

The false characterizations of the Blake incident unnecessarily feed the flames of division. Indeed, as shown by this video from Portland, radicals are teaching children to “F%&* the Police” and encouraging more unnecessary confrontations.

We live in a society dedicated to ordered liberty. Unfortunately, the mainstream media, Black Lives Matter, Antifa, and those individuals teaching children to hate the police, are destroying ordered liberty. The result is the chaos we see enveloping Kenosha. Streets are rendered dangerous, and private property is meaningless to the mob. Government implements a curfew, shuts down public transportation, and mobilizes soldiers. Order lurches toward oppression, and the liberty of the mob resembles anarchy.

The balance can be restored. But it calls for leaders and citizens to examine incidents such as the Blake shooting with honesty. What happened in Kenosha should not have been used to further an agenda, but the Left could not help itself. The death, destruction, and fear engulfing Kenosha are the fault of these opportunists who seek to tear down our society so they can erect the perfect state in its place. Heaven help us.

UPDATE: In a recent interview, AG Barr states that Blake was armed during the course of committing a felony. Blake had a knife and posed a threat to officers trying to arrest him on an outstanding warrant.

The post Jacob Blake, More Riots, and a Forced Narrative appeared first on The Beacon.

The American Revolution is often called a lawyers’ revolution. This is based on the arguments employed as well as the conduct of the revolutionaries themselves.

The colonists in British North America disputed with Parliament about proper interpretation of the British constitution and the scope of their “rights as Englishmen.” At base, the Americans argued that the king was the chief executive of the Empire and that each colonial legislature was, in the words of John Adams, “the only supreme authorities in our colonies.” Hence, the British Parliament, where the Americans had no actual representation, could not make laws binding on the colonies. Great Britain waged war for the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and lost.

As for conduct, the American Revolution was, for the most part, bereft of the senseless violence and destruction of property that has characterized many modern revolutions. Yes, we had our Boston Tea Party and a few tax collectors for the Crown were tarred and feathered, but on the whole domestic order was maintained.

To appreciate the American Revolution, one need only contrast it with the French Revolution. Rather than constitutionalism, the heart of the French Revolution was found in untested theories of philosophes such as Jean Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau believed that men should rule themselves in one legislative corps inasmuch as civil society formed an artificial person with a “general will.” The general will, according to Rousseau, “considers only the common interest” and is always “good.” The state implementing the general will would exercise “universal compulsory force” to promote the good. Hence, a citizen who finds a law to be distasteful and oppressive has no real argument against the measure because the individual will can never challenge the wisdom of the general will.

The French radicals did not seek a reformation of the ancien regime, but its wholesale destruction and replacement. The debate was not merely about the power of the monarchy and privileges of French citizens, but how to create a new society from scratch. This process of creation ex nihilio was ugly.

The French revolutionaries created surveillance committees in all cities to monitor people for purity to revolutionary principles. They established a special criminal court known as the “revolutionary tribunal” for the trial of political offenders, i.e., those who disagreed with the course the revolution was taking. Over 40,000 people were executed at the guillotine for being “enemies of the revolution.”

De-Christianization was pursued with cathedrals turned into “temples of reason.” Public worship was forbidden and symbols of Christianity were removed from sight and often destroyed. Clergy who attempted to minister to the people faced arrest and deportation.

Today, a Rousseauian general will is sweeping through the streets of America. Those who do not do obeisance to Black Lives Matter or Antifa are considered collaborators with white supremacy or institutional racism. For example, Grant Napear, who was the TV voice of the Sacramento Kings for over 30 years, was fired because he declared that “All Lives Matter, Every Single One!” Stan Wischnowski , Executive Editor for The Philadelphia Inquirer, ran a headline “Buildings Matter, Too” for a column from an architecture critic who lamented the wanton destruction of property by rioters allegedly protesting the death of George Floyd. Wischnowski was forced to apologize and step down from his position for being insensitive to the values of the revolution.

In Seattle, protesters occupied six city blocks and created the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (“CHAZ”) where the police could not venture to enforce the laws of society. Police response times to 911 calls in the surrounding areas tripled because of a loss of a precinct building to protesters. Businesses near the zone face many troubles. A Trader Joe’s grocery store in Capitol Hill, for example, announced it was closing because of “safety and security concerns.” Multiple shootings in CHAZ eventually caused Seattle officials to dismantle the autonomous zone.

Across the country revolutionaries have removed or vandalized statues of historical figures who do not share 21st century views on race and other issues. The victims include George Washington, Christopher Columbus, Ulysses S. Grant, and Andrew Jackson.

France celebrates the French Revolution on July 14th, the day the mob rushed a fortress known as the Bastille, seized weapons, and beheaded the fortresses’ governor and his officers. While Americans will gather on July 4th for cookouts and fireworks, the spirit of the age is lurching decidedly toward July 14th. That is not a good sign for the future of our country.

The post July 4th or July 14th? Today’s Upheaval Isn’t George Washington’s Revolution appeared first on The Beacon.

A prime example of the false narrative spun is the 1619 Project of the New York Times. The defining story of America, the Project teaches, is racism and white supremacy. Only by accepting that the United States is rotten to the core because of the existence of African slavery and the vestiges of slavery can one begin to step into the light and see the world as it truly is. Of course, in becoming “woke” on these matters, we also learn that capitalism is a ruthless system integrally related to the plantation system and servitude, that we do not have socialized medicine in the U.S. because of racism, and that our criminal justice is based on a fear of black people. Essays on all of these subjects can be found on the home page of the 1619 Project (unfortunately for most a subscription is required).

The most minor conflict between a black and white person is elevated to front-page news to fit the narrative about race. Just a few days ago, a conflict between a black birdwatcher and a white dog owner made national news as the two argued about the need for the dog to be on a leash and filmed each other with cellphones. The woman certainly went overboard and claimed in a 911 call that a black man was threatening her life and has since lost her dog and job. But is this a national news story? No.

Another example came in 2018 when two black men in a Philadelphia Starbucks had an encounter with police based on suspicion of vagrancy. Or how about the California brouhaha in Oakland when a white woman and a group of black folks had a disagreement about whether a charcoal grill could be used in a particular section of the park. These incidents, which were all much of nothing in the grand scheme, made national news and led to multiple nights of cable talk show panels. But they fit the narrative and thus are elevated to the headlines.

It is not just the media. American colleges and universities have been leading the charge as well with simplistic thinking such as “diversity good” and “Western civilization bad.” Columnist Walter Williams gives some recent examples of the things emanating from our educational institutions:

At University of California, Davis, last month, a mathematics professor faced considerable backlash over her opposition to the requirement for faculty “diversity statements.” University of California, San Diego, requires job applicants to admit to the “barriers” preventing women and minorities from full participation in campus life. At American University, a history professor recently wrote a book in which he advocates repealing the Second Amendment.

One could give further examples, such as student demands at liberal Evergreen College in Washington for a “no white people day” on campus. Rather than telling the students how nutty and offensive this idea was, the college leadership caved and lavished more money on diversity training, a multicultural center, etc.

The ideology behind much of this is, of course, Jacobinism. Black Lives Matter, an organization at the heart of many of the recent protests, extols positions that would make Marat appear to be a moderate. Refusing to accept that out-of-wedlock births have been a disaster for both the black (rate of 69 percent) and white (rate of 28 percent) communities as legions of children are raised without father, BLM promises to further “disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement.” BLM also states it will “do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege,” i.e., the historical and commonsense understanding that sex is designated by birth. As for police forces, BLM “call[s] for the national defunding of police.”

Right, getting rid of law enforcement will make all our communities safer—brilliant! But for law enforcement how many more business and homes would have been burned by the thugs allegedly protesting Floyd’s death?

Is there a place in society for an intelligent discussion about police tactics, race, and government power? Of course. Peaceful demonstrations and exchanges of ideas and perspectives are welcomed in a Republic. The problem we face is that our elites have worked overtime to spin a false narrative that does not allow for a reasoned exchange. This is because emotivism has taken over our discourse.

Emotivism, in essence, holds that moral judgments are no more than expressions of a person’s feelings or preferences. Because moral judgments are really just personal preferences, emotivism views all ethical disagreements as a struggle for power. Because emotivism functions on how we feel or what we like, one cannot reason with an emotivist much less appeal to higher norms and values because the emotovist will simply say he does not like that norm or value—end of conversation. Then, as part of what he sees as a power struggle, he’ll pick up a brick, smash a window, and take what he wants because he likes how it feels to get something for nothing.

The United States certainly has its problems, but the constant stoking of the flames to persuade people that “institutional racism” is the biggest one we face has led to unnecessary violence and property damage. In reality, the biggest risk facing a young black man is homicide from within his own community. Few protest about these homicides because they do not fit into the story concocted by the elites. The false narrative combined with emotivism is cancerous. It is high time that we challenge our elites on their version of history and reality. We must demand reasoned arguments, appeals to timeless moral standards, and put emotivism in the trash heap.

The post Reaping a False Narrative Sown by Our Elites: George Floyd, Riots, and Civil Discourse appeared first on The Beacon.

Unfortunately, the violence, theft, arson, killing and wanton destruction some protesters have unleashed—perhaps incited in part by outside terrorist provocateurs—is likely to exacerbate existing cultural and political schisms, making meaningful policy reform even more difficult. In fact, the violence and destruction is leaving deep and painful scars on the urban landscape.

“Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars . . . Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.”

“Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon, which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals.”

—Martin Luther King, Jr.

Restoring these places—which include scores of small businesses with deep roots in their cities and neighborhoods—is unlikely without a re-affirmed commitment to the just application of the rule of law to protect persons and property, including minorities. Indeed, George Floyd’s death may well be an example of the tragic effects of treating some individuals differently based on prejudice and unwarranted fear.

Ironically, the nation has made too little progress on police brutality and the unequal application of its laws despite heightened awareness of the racial inequities associated with mass incarceration and law-enforcement tactics. But this persistent inequity and injustice does not have to be the case in the aftermath of George Floyd’s killing. Policy proposals are emerging that may well help move this discussion, and reform, meaningfully along. In the process, we can make progress toward a just application of the rule of law.

Racism and the Drug War

First of all, many people of good will are simply unaware of the actual racist origins of the U.S.’s “progressive,” 140-year war on drugs. That history is well established. (I review these origins in my 1992 book, Drug Policy and the Decline of American Cities.) Legally, the “war” was a slow burn, beginning with the anti-Chinese sentiment that led to prohibition on opium imports in 1880. Then, the prohibition effort extended to marijuana, using racist tropes about its effect on Mexican immigrants in the 1930s. The war’s most recent iteration saw a dramatic ramp up in incarceration beginning with Richard Nixon’s presidency. Ronald Reagan officially dubbed it a “war” in the early 1980s and doubled down with harsh sentencing laws and dramatically expanded the numbers of felony crimes.

The nation hasn’t looked back. The nation’s jails, prisons, and federal correctional facilities now house more than 2 million Americans. America accounts for about 25% of the world’s total imprisoned population.

But the drug war is only part of the problem. Fordham University professor John Pfaff, author of Locked In: The True Causes of Mass Incarceration and How to Achieve Reform, lays some of blame on overcharging by prosecutors (district attorneys) responding to unfounded fears in the community at large. A “tough on crime” political ethic has led to systems that put a premium on incarcerating suspected offenders rather than addressing the root causes of the offense, “restoring” or reintegrating ex-offenders back into the mainstream, or even achieving justice.

Prosecutorial Excess

The vast majority of convictions result from plea bargaining, which significantly disadvantages poor, minorities, and other marginalized populations. Without access to adequate legal representation, a “bargain” that included pleading “guilty” to a lesser crime with a short sentence, even if someone did not commit the crime, looks better than the even scarier outcome if a jury fails to acquit you of a dozen or more charges.

Ideological complaints about “structural racism” are ubiquitous and often tendentious; however, there is something systematically awry (although not because of free-market capitalism), but because of government mandates. This case is powerfully made in the award-winning 2016 documentary film 13th (now streaming on Netflix). The film’s title—13th—refers to the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which barred slavery. Specifically, the text reads “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” By carving out an exception for criminal conviction, the amendment opened the door for abuse as southern states. The exception was a back door to establish and reinforce subjugation of blacks through Jim Crow laws and dole out “free” labor to cronies in the business community through chain gangs and similar prison “work” programs.

The movie, however, seems to suggest that if we simply remove the clause “except as a punishment for a crime,” then the racist nature of the criminal justice system would be undermined. But this implies to a typical American reader that prisons themselves would have to be abolished, even for those who commit crimes. Abolishing all prisons or forms of incarceration or confinement is not the answer and is a nonstarter for the vast majority of Americans. The movie offers no resolution to this dilemma. As a result, the film, like the current protests over the killing of unarmed black men, provides little insight into practical steps toward reform.

Practical Policy Reforms to Reduce Police Brutality

Which brings us back to George Floyd and police brutality. If we continue to believe that at least some people who commit crimes must be removed from society—incarcerated or confined—how do we address obvious racial inequities, let alone police brutality against minorities and the poor?

Several organizations have been mobilizing for decades to roll back destructive mandatory minimums and three strikes sentencing laws. These laws have incarcerated hundreds of thousands of nonviolent offenders with little social benefit (see here and here for summaries of the issue). Moreover, while reform in these areas would reduce the “in take,” they don’t address police brutality per se.

Enter Rashawn Ray, a sociologist and David M. Rubenstein Fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution. Ray argues that two reforms could have a meaningful impact on law enforcement agencies and reduce police brutality. First, an officer’s previous work history should be part of the hiring process. If an officer was dismissed from their previous job for excessive force or inappropriate conduct, they should be barred from being hired back into law enforcement.

Second, and perhaps more important (because it also addresses the first recommendation), Ray argues law enforcement agencies should not use taxpayer funds to compensate victims of police misconduct—civil payments. Instead, law enforcement agencies should, like doctors and other professionals, buy the equivalent of private malpractice insurance. Then, their insurance premiums would reflect the relative risk the departments face from institutionalized misconduct. Minimizing conflict with the community and suspected offenders becomes a fiscal and strategic priority within the agency. Minorities will be direct beneficiaries of this change in policy.

Another policy reform I would add to the list would be ending qualified immunity, a legal shield created by the U.S. Supreme Court for police officers (and other state actors) even if they violate the law. This threshold has made it very difficult to prosecute police officers for criminal acts even when they violate the constitutional rights of a suspect. According to the Cato Institute’s Jay Schweikert, the U.S. Supreme Court may be ready to review several cases that might challenge this judicial doctrine (which is not constitutionally based). (See also the work by the Institute for Justice.)

And as was recently reported in the Wall Street Journal, government police unions in cities across the country play a central role in protecting bad cops. Too many see their job as protecting the jobs of all cops, even at the expense of justice and protecting the public. They tend to prop up politicians who protect bad cops from accountability to the taxpayers and citizens they are supposed to serve. More specifically in Minneapolis which, has had “progressives” running the city for decades and now with a white mayor and a black police chief, Officer Derek Chauvin, who was viewed as repeatedly abusive in 18 instances, was never held accountable for his bad behavior.

Time for Law Enforcement Agencies to Step Up

In the meantime, law enforcement agencies can impose their own standards. They could, for example, adopt minimally necessary force guidelines for arresting suspects. This step would put the emphasis on de-escalation and prompt questions about whether the force needed to arrest a suspect is commensurate with the crime. A violent criminal suspect, for example, with a warrant for their arrest might properly require a higher level of force compared to someone pulled over for a traffic violation, or, in the case of George Floyd, is suspected of passing a forged $20 bill.

Protest movements, whether the Tea Party or Black Lives Matter, can be quite effective at tearing institutions down. What they don’t do effectively is build, or reconstruct, just institutions. The unfortunate side-effects of the current protests put the deficiencies of mass protest in start relief.

In almost all cases the protests started peacefully. Many, however, degenerated into chaotic and violent riots as looters and anti-establishment groups hijacked the demonstrations for their own disruptive political and personal purposes. Blocks of businesses have been destroyed and pillaged, including small businesses that have served as cultural connections to our past and bulwarks against decline. Some people have even been killed protecting their personal property from looters. It is a vicious, deeply disturbing and ironic development that African-American citizens have been disproportionately victimized in these riots and on a huge scale as major urban communities are being destroyed.

Rebuilding civil society will be a critical task in the aftermath of the George Floyd riots. This task will be left to the policy experts and elected officials. But reconstructing just institutions can’t even begin unless we have solid proposals for what the building blocks for reform are. Addressing police brutality and its racial consequences is one step on that long-term path toward reform and restoration.

Additional Resources from the Independent Institute

For more on race, policing, criminal justice reform, and the rule of law, please see my movie reviews of Queen and Slim, Green Book, Marshall, Detroit, and Loving.

Sample Independent Institute books on criminal justice reform and policy include:

• To Serve and Protect: Privatization and Community in Criminal Justice, by Bruce L. Benson, with a foreword by Marvin E. Wolfgang
• The Pursuit of Justice: Law and Economics of Legal Institutions, edited by Edward J. López, with a foreword by Robert D. Tollison
• In All Fairness: Equality, Liberty, and the Quest for Human Dignity, edited by Robert M. Whaples, Michael C. Munger and Christopher J. Coyne, with a foreword by Richard A. Epstein
• Securing Civil Rights: Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms, by Stephen P. Halbrook
• Race & Liberty in America: The Essential Reader, edited by Jonathan J. Bean
• Judge and Jury: American Tort Law on Trial, by Eric A. Helland and Alexander T. Tabarrok
• Changing the Guard: Private Prisons and the Control of Crime, edited by Alexander T. Tabarrok, with a foreword by Charles H. Logan
• Drug War Crimes: The Consequences of Prohibition, by Jeffrey A. Miron
• The Voluntary City: Choice, Community, and Civil Society, edited by David T. Beito, Peter Gordon and Alexander T. Tabarrok, with a foreword by Paul Johnson

The post George Floyd and the Future of Police Misconduct appeared first on The Beacon.