Tag: law

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment free trade & free markets general freedom media and media people moral hazard responsibility

Blame the App?

WhatsApp, India, murder, responsibility, cause, effect, law, ban, blame

Who spreads “fake news”?

Gossips, politicians, publicity agents, Twitter eggs, partisan bloggers, lying news journalists?

Or . . . the medium of communication they use?

Do envelopes, stationery, telephones, email, and messaging apps have moral agency?

And who commits the crimes that news (true or false) is used to rationalize?

A New York Times story discusses “How WhatsApp Leads Mobs to Murder in India,” which is like saying that civilization, flying lessons and boarding passes “led” terrorists to 9/11.

The Times reports that fake news about children being kidnapped — dramatized by doctored video clips and forwarded via WhatsApp, a messaging app — provoked anger and fear in many Indians. Some were then willing to attack anyone who “seemed” about to kidnap children.

In recent months, dozens of people have been murdered for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Without social media and the mega-popular WhatsApp, the murders probably would not have happened, at least not the way they happened. That seems certain. But this doesn’t mean that without WhatsApp, nobody in India would spread false stories or assault innocent people.

Mob violence in the country antedates the Internet.

Perhaps a thousand material circumstances directly or indirectly enable any particular act of wrongdoing. But no such prerequisites “lead to” anything without individual choices.

If someone pretends it’s okay to kill innocent persons — or persons whose guilt or innocence he doesn’t care to know — he, the killer, is the guilty party. The telecommunications network or messenger app used to provide grist for excuse-making is innocent.

Apps don’t murder people. People murder people.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

PDF for printing

 

Categories
Common Sense

The Not-Saint Timothy

violence, force, hate speech, law, crime, libertarian

Some people believe that aggression is physical force and nothing else. From this they derive the notion that only physical violence should be prosecuted — or, more generally, retaliated against with force.

But it is obvious that some invasions of private property or personal space, with malice and anger and alarming unhinged-ness, are aggressive.

And should be prosecuted in law.

Take the current case of Timothy Trybus, who is testing a further point of law that especially concerns those of us strongly motivated to focus on initiated force.*

“It is pretty clear,” writes Jacob Sullum in Reason, that the man “broke the law when he harassed Mia Irizarry for wearing a T-shirt featuring the Puerto Rican flag at a park in Chicago last month.”

Mr. Trybus was drunk, and he “got in her face,” so to speak, challenging her in a not-unusual nationalistic/pseudo-patriotic/jingoistic fashion that seems old-fashioned and up-to-date Trumpian:

  • “Why are you wearing that?”
  • “This is America!”
  • “If you’re an American citizen, you should not be wearing that shirt in America.”

Puerto Rico may not be a state, but . . . the proper reaction might have been to challenge the not-Saint Timothy to a bit of patriotic one-upmanship: “How can you be so un-American as to object to an American commonwealth flag?”

He’s now being prosecuted for a hate crime as well as assault. Though he may never have touched the woman, his aggressiveness is legally regarded as a threat of force.

Understandably. But if the hate crime thing sticks, will antifa and other obvious anti-American thugs be given that extra legal consideration in similar situations?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* Which, I confess, I like to think of as “all civilized people.” But I may be optimistic. Reducing violence is an almost universal desire, and the question of who started violence is nearly universal. But the focus is, well, in our times called “libertarian.”

PDF for printing

 

Photo from Max Pixel

 

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment folly free trade & free markets general freedom judiciary local leaders moral hazard nannyism Second Amendment rights too much government U.S. Constitution

Ought Implies Cantifornia

microstamping, bullet, California, law, guns, gun control

“Strip away the absurdity,” writes Scott Shackford at Reason, “and it’s essentially a very technical ruling.”

Shackford is explaining a bizarre recent judgment of the California Supreme Court.

Politicians in Sacramento had, years ago, passed a gun control measure requiring gun manufacturers to “implement microstamping technology that would imprint identifying information on bullets as they were shot from semi-automatic weapons.” In 2014, Smith & Wesson announced that it would pull some guns from the California market rather than comply. Why? The technology just wasn’t ready yet.*

Since California’s Civil Code contains a section reiterating an old commonsense principle to the effect that the “law never requires impossibilities,” the National Shooting Sports Foundation sued to block the law.

But the group just lost.

The Court did say it could protect citizens from punishment, but it refused to nullify the legislation on constitutional grounds.

Unanimously.

Why do this? Apparently to protect California politicians in their ongoing social engineering schemes.

The dollar costs of trying to comply with impossible demands are huge, of course. But the biggest costs may be more subtle.

In moral philosophy, it is a truism to say that “ought implies can.” In natural law as understood long ago, an impossible law was thought not a law at all, justifiably ignored by anyone and everyone.

In a just state, flouting of maddening regulations like California’s would lead not merely to the defense of the absurdly put-upon citizen — as this court ruling still allows — but also to the nixing of the “impossible” law.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* Shackford notes that “a cynic might theorize that this is the law’s actual intent.” I wouldn’t limit that suspicion to folks given to cynicism. Pragmatists and political scientists and almost anyone else would be placing bets on that, too.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment education and schooling national politics & policies responsibility U.S. Constitution

Will Feds Foil Foolish Licensing?

Marco Rubio, Elizabeth Warren, student, loan, debt, Florida, federalism, states, federal, law, college loan

It would be nice if the federal government used its often-abused authority over state and local governments to outlaw various forms of state and local oppression.

In his book Leviathan: The Growth of Local Government and the Erosion of Liberty, Clint Bolick argues that the federal government is not alone in hugely violating individual rights. Eminent domain, asset forfeiture, zoning, and occupational licensing are among the modes of sub-federal assault on the innocent. Even as policymakers in various regions of the land act to stop the worst of these abuses, they proceed unchecked elsewhere.

U.S. Senators Marco Rubio and Democrat Elizabeth Warren are the unlikely duo who may interrupt the now-common practice of depriving delinquent borrowers of student loans of their right to earn a living from certain trades. Rubio recently admitted on Twitter that as a Florida lawmaker, he once voted to allow the state “to suspend professional licenses of those who defaulted on student loans. I WAS WRONG. . . . How can they pay back if they can’t work?”

Yes, Rubio was wrong.

Senator Warren, for her part, agrees that the practice is “wrong and counterproductive.”

The bi-partisan duo’s bill would prohibit states from denying driver’s licenses and occupational licenses to borrowers who default on student loans.

I don’t think the legislation goes as far as it should, even in the delimited area of occupational licensing. The absurdities of occupational licensing go way beyond the scope of the proposed remedy.

But it’s a start.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

PDF for printing

 

Photos by Gage Skidmore and Edward Kimmel

 

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment folly free trade & free markets general freedom ideological culture moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies privacy property rights responsibility too much government

Working to Boost Unemployment

occupational licensing, hair braiding, permission, law, crime, employment, unemployment, control, health

Some government officials work overtime to throw people out of work.

What I’m referring to differs from losing your job or business because of slack performance or slackening sales. Instead, you lose the right to earn your living a certain way so that the government can benefit competitors at your expense.

Occupational licensing is great at dis-employing people. The regulations are especially galling when the work being regulated obviously requires no formal training in order to be done well and safely.

Hair braiding, for example.

The Institute for Justice — which has done incredible work over the years representing victims of destructive government mandates — just won a victory for hair braiders in Iowa. Thanks to IJ’s efforts, a new law there exempts braiders from having to waste time and money getting a cosmetology license in order to practice their craft.

Such battles are never won permanently, of course. Washington, D.C., recently started requiring day care providers to get a college degree or lose their job. (As I have argued in a Townhall column, the same “logic” would justify forcing people to get college degrees to become parents.) IJ is helping affected parties to challenge the absurd law.

It is time for a new licensing requirement. Nobody gets to become a local, state or federal lawmaker unless he first writes a million times in a row, “I will never help violate the rights of any man or woman to earn an honest living.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

PDF for printing

 

Categories
crime and punishment folly free trade & free markets general freedom initiative, referendum, and recall local leaders nannyism national politics & policies privacy

Legalize Cancer Fighting

Cannabis World Congress, Marijuana, legalization, decriminalization, law, initiative, citizens, democracy

“Do all former congressmen have to get cancer before we’re gonna get medical marijuana or recreational marijuana?”

That’s what Reason TV’s Nick Gillespie asked Billy Tauzin at the Cannabis World Congress and Business Exposition. Tauzin’s a former Representative for Louisiana’s 3rd District. He moved from Congress to lobbying for Big Pharma — I mean, PhRMA, a drug lobbying group — and then to Lenitiv Scientific, where he works now.

The company produces “a line of innovative, high quality cannabis and hemp-derived CBD products,” its website informs. These products, says the former Republican politician, are so effective that he now expresses some regret that he could not have had access to such drugs when he was fighting cancer more than a decade ago. Today’s cancer patients have it easier, because of cannabis-derived products, including CBD.

Hence Gillespie’s question — which almost answers itself.

With a No.

The number of states that have legalized or decriminalized marijuana for recreational or medicinal uses (or both) is growing all the time, usually without the help of politicians with or without cancer.

The movement has mostly been carried on by We, the People through initiative and referendum. Especially the crucial early steps.

But politicians are beginning to follow our leadership.

Which, in a society where citizens are in charge, is all to the good.

Though powerful opposition remains, Tauzin speculates, “I think if we took a silent vote, secret ballot, we’d win tomorrow easily.”

So, given a little more time for Congress to catch up with the culture, freedom can prevail, no cancer necessary.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

PDF for printing

 

Categories
crime and punishment general freedom moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies privacy responsibility too much government U.S. Constitution

Too Healthy to Play

marijuana, Cannabis oil, law, football, crime, criminal, therapy

Cannabis oil can prevent the seizures of at least some victims of epilepsy. But the hope this medicine provides is too often undercut by fear.

I discussed, a few days ago, the case of 15-year-old David Brill, whose life is in danger because officials forcibly removed him from the care of his parents. His mom and dad had (illegally) let him smoke pot — which stopped his seizures. Now they’re fighting to recover custody of David and save his life.

Somewhat different is the plight of an aspiring football player at Auburn University.

Early in 2017, the would-be safety in question, C.J. Harris, began taking cannabis oil to stop epileptic seizures. He has suffered no seizures in all the months since. And he’s in no legal trouble.

But Auburn University’s football team has rescinded its offer to join the team. Exactly why he won’t be allowed to play is unclear. One would guess it is because of the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s ban on cannabis oil, even if prescribed. But the team’s medical personnel says they’re only concerned about his health given his history and the roughness of football.

Does Auburn apply the same standard to all players who have recovered from major physical setbacks? Or, rather, does the team typically let players return to play as soon as they’re ready and able?

Whatever is keeping him off the field, the factors that should decide the question are being shunted aside.

One, is C.J. Harris healthy enough and skilled enough to play for Auburn?

Two, is C.J. Harris willing to accept the risks involved?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

PDF for printing

 

Categories
crime and punishment education and schooling folly general freedom moral hazard privacy responsibility too much government U.S. Constitution

Ecstatic with Independence

free range, freedom, Utah, children, walk, outside, law, hysteria

Utah’s legislature unanimously passed it; the governor signed it — the nation’s first measure protecting what’s become known as “free-range parenting.”

It was once known simply as “parenting.”

Certain activities are now exempt from a state law criminalizing child neglect. Children may legally “walk, run or bike to and from school, travel to commercial or recreational facilities, play outside and remain at home unattended” — thereby allowing “a child, whose basic needs are met and who is of sufficient age and maturity to avoid harm or unreasonable risk of harm, to engage in independent activities . . .”

Back in the day, we apparently played outside in a sort of statutory limbo.

Do we really need a law saying kids can walk on a public street?

Sadly, yes: government agencies across the country are grossly violating the most basic rights of parents to rear independent children.

Regular readers may recall my 2015 defenses* of the Meitiv parents against the absurd charge of “unsubstantiated neglect” leveled against them by Montgomery County (Maryland) Child Protective Services. Ultimately, Maryland authorities acknowledged that permitting one’s kids (in the Meitivs’ case, a 10- and a 6-year-old) to walk on a public sidewalk (from a local park) wasn’t prima facie evidence of a crime. 

The current free-range parenting movement was launched in 2008 when Lenore Skenazy publicly admitted — to mass shock and condemnation — to allowing her 9-year-old son to take a trip alone on New York City’s subway.

“My son got home,” she wrote in the New York Sun, “ecstatic with independence.”

Notice how rare it is to find anyone ecstatic with dependence.

Lesson? An old one: Happiness must be pursued with freedom.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* My writings on the Meitivs’ battle to keep their kids:

PDF for printing

 

Categories
crime and punishment folly general freedom local leaders moral hazard nannyism privacy responsibility too much government

The Winds of Regulation

occupational, licensing, permission, unions, protectionism, regulation, license, law

Among the many goofy occupational licensing laws in these United States, Arizona’s licensing for professional blow-drying services is up there with the silliest. 

“Under current law, using a blow-dryer on someone else’s hair, for money, requires more than 1,000 hours of training and an expensive state-issued license,” we learn at Reason. “Blow-drying hair without a license could — incredibly — land you in jail for up to six months.”

This came into the news because of a campaign to deregulate the cosmetology industry — just a bit, anyway. Gov. Doug Ducey, in his recent State of the State address, “mocked the state agency that licenses stylists, barbers, nail technicians and affiliated professionals in Arizona, and endorsed legislation to remove training requirements for those who simply wash, brush and blow-dry customers’ hair.”

Licensed cosmetologists — well, at least some organized ones — have gone into a tizzy.

Hardly surprising, since occupational licensing, though usually argued for on consumer safety grounds, rarely finds consumers clamoring for it. 

It’s groups of established businesses, professionals.*

Brandy Wells, the sole non-cosmetologist on the state board overseeing the regulation of the industry, supports the liberalizing bill. So of course she has been called every name in the book. But even she was amused by one stylish denigration: “your logic on deregulation of cosmetology is much like your hair, dull and flat.”

The issue may seem trivial, with not all that much on the line — though jobs are . . . and freedom is. 

But it doesn’t lack for hot air.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* As Adam Smith argued, whenever businessmen (“dealers”) in the same industry group together, their proposals should be listened to “with great precaution.”

PDF for printing

 

Categories
crime and punishment folly free trade & free markets general freedom nannyism too much government

Beaver State Bliss

gas, Oregon, freedom, invisible hand, law, pump, control

The Great State of Oregon is not at DEFCON 1. Nor are Beaver State residents gnashing their teeth over a new law that went into effect earlier this week.

News reports proclaimed: “People in Oregon are freaking out about the thought of pumping their own gas under a new law.” But don’t believe everything you read.

For starters, Oregon’s new law doesn’t actually force anyone to do anything. It merely allows “retailers in counties with a population of less than 40,000 . . . to have self-service gas pumps.”

But a Facebook post by KTVL CBS 10 News in Medford took it an apparently frightening step further, asking, “Do you think Oregon should allow self-serve gas stations statewide?” The post went viral nationwide because of responses such as this:

I’ve lived in this state all my life and I REFUSE to pump my own gas . . .

This [is] a service only qualified people should perform. I will literally park at the pump and wait until someone pumps my gas.

Oregon is one of only two states — New Jersey, the other — where gas stations are banned from permitting customers to put gas in their own cars. Folks in the other 48 states have managed, as one Facebooker explained, “to pump gas without spilling the whole tank and triggering a Star Wars-style explosion.”

Still, if Oregonians so revere their regulatory regime, protecting them from the indignity of pumping gas, why change the law even partially?

Well, for economic reasons. As you might expect, gas stations across rural Oregon were closing at night, stranding many motorists.

Freer markets offer greater protection for real people . . . those not too perplexed by the prospect of pumping their own petrol.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing