Tag: law

Sweet Grape Victory of 2020

Post author By Editor
Post date September 25, 2020
1 Comment on Sweet Grape Victory of 2020

Raise a long-stemmed glass to the wineries of Minnesota. And to the Institute for Justice, which fought for their rights in court.

Minnesota wine makers may now make wine with whatever grapes they like! They may make wines that were illegal for them to make before.

Early in September, a federal judge struck down a 1980 Minnesota law which prevented Minnesota wineries from crushing grapes into wine unless most of the grapes being used had been grown in Minnesota. Winemakers were thus thwarted from producing popular varietals requiring grapes that can’t be grown in the state. Temporary exemptions from the law were possible but could not be counted on.

Judge Wilhelmina Wright’s ruling may well inspire challenges to similar prohibitions in other states. You know you’re a fifth of the way into the twenty-first century when dramatic modernistic advancements like letting wineries buy whatever grapes they wish have become possible.

You may be thinking: “Huh? I had no idea that wine makers in Minnesota were not allowed to buy grapes from other states. That’s painfully stupid!”

Of course, that is probably not the opinion of the proponents of the law. At least some Minnesota grape growers no doubt believe that persuading lawmakers to block out-of-state grapes was a smart move.

But is it really so very wise to hobble business competitors for the sake of short-term advantages regardless of the long-term costs to the freedom — not to mention the palates — of all?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags freedom, law, regulations, violence

Accountability crime and punishment

Who is Responsible?

Breonna Taylor is dead. She was shot five times by Louisville police, who were returning fire after forcibly entering her apartment.

“[T]he department had received court approval for a ‘no-knock’ entry,” reports The New York Times, but “the orders were changed before the raid to ‘knock and announce,’ meaning that the police had to identify themselves.” There is disagreement as to whether police did so.

It appears that shortly after midnight on March 13, police knocked down Ms. Taylor’s front door and her boyfriend fired his gun at what he thought was an old boyfriend of Breonna’s.

That old boyfriend, Jamarcus Glover, who has a “2015 drug trafficking conviction” and “several pending drug and weapons cases against him,” Louisville’s WAVE‑3 TV informs, “was named on the March 13 warrant that sent officers to Taylor’s apartment.”

But three lawmen came through the door instead. One was hit in the leg and they opened fire.

Another of them, already terminated by the Louisville Metropolitan Police Department, was charged yesterday with “wanton endangerment” for firing his weapon indiscriminately. But no charges for Breonna Taylor’s death.

While the apparent police misconduct must not be excused, it is too easy to blame police. Breaking down doors — whether after “no-knock” or a brief wee-hours rap on the door and yodeled announcement (when the target is likely asleep) — leads to gun battles and lost lives … of innocent citizens as well as police officers.*

And the drug laws that ultimately brought Louisville’s battering-ram-wielding cops to Breonna’s door were not written by those policemen.

They were written by politicians, and it is they who must change the laws and the policies that led to Breonna Taylor’s death.

But they will never do it unless we make them.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* I remember Cory Maye in Mississippi, who was on death row for years after killing a policeman in a late-night no-knock raid on his home. No drugs found. Wrong house. Thankfully, Cory was finally released. But the policeman is still dead; his wife and kids lost a husband and father.

Note: As we put this commentary to bed, two Louisville policemen have been shot and a suspect arrested. Both officers are receiving treatment at a local hospital.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags Breonna Taylor, law, police

nannyism paternalism too much government

Five-Hundred Hour Shampoo Sham

Post author By Redactor
Post date August 12, 2020
2 Comments on Five-Hundred Hour Shampoo Sham

Given everything that has happened over the last several millennia, you can’t be surprised by anything. But still.

I had to check the text of the bill, A06578 in the New York State Assembly, to make sure the stories are accurate. It checks out: some lawmakers really do want to compel aspiring “shampoo assistants” to take 500 hours of training before they suds up your hair. (Apparently, though, you will still be allowed to give yourself a home-shower shampoo, even without training. Maybe future legislation will close this loophole.)

The culpable assemblymen are Carrie Woerner, (518) 455‑5404, and John T. McDonald III, (518) 455‑4474. A companion bill, S8862, is sponsored by co-conspirator State Senator Jen Metzger, (518) 455‑2400.

According to the legislation, certificate holders may shampoo and rinse but not, you know, perform delicate surgical procedures like waxing or placing artificial braids.

One odd thing about the bill is this stipulation: “All shampoo assistant certificates shall expire one year from the date of issuance.” So … every year, shampoo assistants must put in another 500 hours?

On the other hand … come on, man. Think of the risk.

What if the water is too hot and the shampoo assistant is brand-new and hasn’t had the 500 hours training, so she gets burned and burns the head of the customer, or even heats the water on a stove until it boils and then pours it over her own head and the customer’s head?

How would she know not to do that without any training whatsoever?

This is … I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags law, license, permission, shampoo

crime and punishment national politics & policies property rights

Dereliction of Duty

Must governments act to protect you when you or your property are attacked — for example, by rioters who vandalize and burn your store?

Is the government liable if it willfully lets it happen?

Protection of life and property is the moral obligation of governments constituted for this purpose. But whether officials who ignore the obligation can be held to account is another question.

A Madison Avenue shop, Domus Design Center, is suing the mayor of New York City and the governor of New York State. In late May and early June, hundreds of businesses were damaged by rioters while Mayor de Blasio and Governor Cuomo refused to act to oppose them.

“Where are our tax dollars going?” asks the Center’s attorney, Sal Strazzullo. “Not protecting commercial properties is negligence of duty. Paying taxes that help pay the salary of the NYPD, we expect protection in return. Government is responsible to protect its citizens and businesses against criminals who want to do bad.”

Yes.

But Strazzullo’s client faces the precedents of rulings in cases like Warren v. District of Columbia, Castle Rock v. Gonzales, and a lawsuit by Parkland, Florida students against the local sheriff’s office. In these cases, plaintiffs argued that law enforcers had a positive duty to protect the plaintiffs when they were being clearly threatened.

The courts disagreed.

We must hope that there are limits to the willingness and ability of judges to avert their gaze. Otherwise, we are paying everyone in the system to look the other way when trouble comes.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Photo by Georgia National Guard

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags law, police, protection, riot

crime and punishment national politics & policies

Police Incentives Matter

criminal justice reform, incentives, law, police, money,

“For every bullet the German police fired on duty in 2016, American police killed 10 people,” writes Jason Brennan for MarketWatch. “Even overwhelmingly white states like Wyoming and Montana imprison citizens at higher rates than authoritarian Cuba.”

What is going on here?

And by here I mean “these United States of America.”

Well, Brennan, who is the Robert J and Elizabeth Flanagan Family Professor of Strategy, Economics, Ethics, and Public Policy at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business, has an answer.

“What matters even more than black and white is green,” he writes, referencing the current protests and riots sparked by coverage of the George Floyd killing by Minneapolis police. “Fixing our criminal justice system means fixing the incentives.”

Professor Brennan points the finger at a number of federal programs:

The 1981 Military Cooperation with Law Enforcement Act “authorized and incentivized the U.S. armed forces to train police in military tactics” while the 1990 National Defense Authorization Act established a pipeline from the military industrial complex to local police forces.
The drug war set up police theft of private property via civil asset forfeiture, and encouraged federal drug warriors to share the loot with local police departments.
In many localities, direct election of prosecutors leads to campaign boasts about prosecution stats and long sentences, even when these policies make us less safe.

There’s a lot here to mull over, and you may not agree with everything Brennan argues, but the basic point is quite clear: “Even if we magically erased all racism overnight, the U.S. would still be harsh and violent” — and that because our politics has skewed incentives all wrong.

Getting rid of programs and laws that disincentivize good policing is a must.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags criminal justice reform, incentives, law, police, police brutality

national politics & policies too much government

The Ratchet Racket

ratchet, coronavirus, Covid, pandemic, epidemic, law, regulations, government,

Various models and curves and soothsayers predict that the coronavirus will lay off as the summer sun waxes. And then rush back in the autumn.

So we should not look at just near-term threats, but also look at cycles of contagion month-to-month, year-to-year.

Yet, it is not just the dreaded coronavirus that must be seen over time. “Crisis measures are often ineffective,” writes Matthew Feeney, at Cato Institute, “and can survive the crisis they are implemented to counter.”

Because government power and interference tend to ratchet up with each crisis, there is a whole lot of reason to suspect that we will not go back to normal. Indeed, “the new normal” is now a catchphrase.

The quarantine shutdown has been, if not total, totalistic. Feeney acknowledges such extremist (he didn’t use that word) measures may sometimes be justifiable. But warns of that ratchet, of new powers given to government not devolving after the crisis.

Ted Galen Carpenter, also at Cato.org, draws a “fundamental lesson” from the panic: “Americans need to resist the casual expansion of arbitrary governmental power in response to the current coronavirus crisis.”

The extreme measures of the shutdown — called by economist Gene Epstein “The Great Suppression” — should have been widely discussed before the contagion hit. Instead, they were discussed in meetings behind closed doors.

But most of us were already up to our necks in the political muck fighting off the everyday kludge of the old normal level of too-much-government.

You know, from the previous turn of the ratchet.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing