Drugs, Race, and Weaponry On The Local Beat

Tags

, , , , ,

SWAT_cartoon_FTW_by_the_lagz

Here’s an interesting puzzle regarding drug use, drug arrests and race. It’s not good. The only theory mentioned at the link doesn’t feel like a complete explanation, but one thing is certain: the drug war is not good for anyone, and it’s especially hard on blacks. 

The conduct of police has been called into question by events in Ferguson, Missouri, both in terms of prosecuting their day-to-day law enforcement duties and whether the “militarization” of local police is a healthy development. Glen Reynolds has some good suggestions for ensuring safer and more productive interactions between police and the public. He forgot to mention that we should end the war on drugs, but I’m sure he’d agree!

Drugs, Race, and Weaponry On The Local Beat

Tags

, , , , ,

SWAT_cartoon_FTW_by_the_lagz

Here’s an interesting puzzle regarding drug use, drug arrests and race. It’s not good. The only theory mentioned at the link doesn’t feel like a complete explanation, but one thing is certain: the drug war is not good for anyone, and it’s especially hard on blacks. 

The conduct of police has been called into question by events in Ferguson, Missouri, both in terms of prosecuting their day-to-day law enforcement duties and whether the “militarization” of local police is a healthy development. Glen Reynolds has some good suggestions for ensuring safer and more productive interactions between police and the public. He forgot to mention that we should end the war on drugs, but I’m sure he’d agree!

IRS Parlance: “Difficult To Retrieve” = “Destroyed”

Tags

, , , , , ,

 IRS Records

DOJ attorneys told Judicial Watch on Friday that the federal government backs up all emails “in case of a government-wide catastrophe.” According to these attorneys, the real reason that the IRS has not provided Lois Lerner’s emails is that retrieval from back-up tapes would be “onerous.” Here is Judicial Watch’s statement on the discovery, which includes this quote from Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton: “You can bet we are going to ask the court for immediate assistance in cutting through this massive obstruction of justice.”

The latest revelations are related to the ongoing Judicial Watch v. IRS lawsuit over IRS abuses being heard by U.S. District Court Judge Emmett Sullivan. In July 10 ruling, Judge Sullivan gave the IRS 30 days to provide details regarding the missing emails. Following the agency’s response, which seemed less than forthcoming, “Judge Sullivan authorized Judicial Watch to submit a request for limited discovery into the missing IRS records after September 10.”

Police Fatalities Down; Violent Crime Down; Heavy Armor Up

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

police

The ongoing situation in Ferguson, Missouri is volatile and probably dangerous for both police and protesters. This is mainly attributed to agitators from outside the community with a different, more violent agenda than the local protestors. Fortunately, as far as I know, no one else has been severely injured or killed in Ferguson in the aftermath of Michael Brown’s death. The unrest, however, has highlighted a controversy over the recent militarization of local police in the U.S. One justification offered for the acquisition of surplus military hardware is the danger often faced by police in the line of duty. Yet the statistics cited in “By the Numbers: How Dangerous Is It to Be a Cop?” suggest that it has never been safer to be a police officer, and there are certainly occupations that are far more deadly. This undercuts assertions that the military gear is necessary for the safety of police. The author does not intend to minimize the difficulty and hazards of law enforcement: 

“They’re required to have daily contact with drunks, the mentally disabled, and criminal suspects. Arrests can often lead to physical confrontation, assault, and sometimes injury…. But it just isn’t unusually deadly or dangerous—and it’s safer today than ever before. The data do not justify the kinds of armor, weapons, insecurity, and paranoia being displayed by police across the country.” 

Perhaps we can leave the heavy armor and sophisticated weaponry in the care of the National Guard, for use only when the Guard’s involvement is judged necessary. (The Guard was called to Ferguson by Missouri Governor Jay Nixon earlier this week.) I noted several weeks ago in “Local Police or Local Military” that violent crime in the U.S. has fallen in half since 1991, deepening the mystery over the presumed need for heavy police armor.

We should also be suspicious of the militarization of federal regulatory agencies such as the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Education, and the FDA, which apparently all employ their own SWAT teams. “Let’s Demilitarize the Regulatory Agencies, Too” discusses these developments and efforts to roll back the “warrior cop” trend via legislation:

“There has already been left-right cooperation on the issue, as witness the unsuccessful Grayson-Amash amendment in June seeking to cut off the military-surplus 1033 program.” 

Your Administrative Master With Police Power

Tags

, , , , , ,

sinestro

The administrative / regulatory state just grows and grows, as this tool from the Mercatus Center shows. As it does so, the bureaucracy becomes less accountable to the people in its sway, and seemingly less responsive to the checks and balances among the branches of government defined in the constitution. Rules are made by unelected bureaucrats, and their application is often uneven and arbitrary. In “The Sinestro Theory of The Administrative State,” Ben Domenech explores the link between this type of governance and declining “faith” in government itself. The danger posed by the administrative state is captured here by Domenech:

“In the era of the Administrative State, big government has been giving out too many rings to too many would-be Sinestros. And when it comes to trust in Washington, it’s the fact that this power is centralized in the Administrative State, rather than localized via federalism, which creates the special class of modern ringbearers. It allows them to work together in common purpose, as the progressives intended, as opposed to balancing and checking each other, as the Founders always understood to be essential.” [Sinestro link in original]. 

It may be too late, but left unchecked, the administrative state will be an ongoing and increasing drag on the economy and personal freedom. It must be rolled back. 

The Comparative Diversity of Ferguson, Missouri

Tags

, , , , , ,

ferguson-missouri 

I live in the St. Louis area, and like almost everyone in the region, I am disturbed by the unfortunate series of recent events in Ferguson, an “inner ring” suburb in St. Louis County. I found this post, “Is segregation the problem in Ferguson?” to be a good analysis of the degree of racial integration in Ferguson and in St. Louis County (which is separate from the city of St. Louis, the latter being essentially its own “county”). The author, Jonathan Rodden of The Hoover Institution, is a graduate of nearby McCluer North High School, part of the Ferguson-Florrissant School District. The post contains some nice maps and charts that shed light on the question of local diversity.

Rodden emphasizes the high degree of integration in Ferguson relative to St. Louis County, countering the notion that a lack of diversity has caused problems in Ferguson:

“While most of St. Louis County’s residents live in municipalities that are either homogeneous or internally segregated or both, Ferguson and its North County neighbors stand out for their relative heterogeneity and internal desegregation. Moreover, the income gap between blacks and whites is smaller in these municipalities than elsewhere.”

Rodden notes that much of the unrest has been focused on minimal African American representation on the city’s police force and in city government:

“The immediate problem in Ferguson is neither residential segregation nor its demise. Rather, as many have pointed out, it is that the racial integration of the community has not been reflected in the municipal government and police force, whose racial composition still reflects the status quo of the 1980s.”

He places some blame on certain interest groups who manipulate the election cycle: 

“Recent research by political scientists has shown that small but well-organized interest groups, such as unionized teachers and municipal workers, benefit handsomely from low-turnout off-cycle elections. Historically, off-cycle elections have been a favored strategy of established ethnic groups in American cities who wished to keep immigrants and minorities out of power.”

However, ultimately voter turnout is up to voters, so electing satisfactory representation should not be an insurmountable challenge within the existing system. Another quibble I have is that Rodden almost implies that the process of hiring a more diverse police force can be accomplished fairly easily and quickly. Such a change would probably have to occur through attrition of the existing force, which would take time. 

Big Casino Bets Have Bad Economic Odds

Tags

, , , , , ,

 'I bet you £10 there's a gambling advert on next.'

I generally don’t gamble, but I believe that gambling should be legal, and not just at casinos on rivers and lagoons. Those high-profile casino developments involve a lot of concentrated economic and political power in the service of providing a willing counter-party for bettors, always at odds that garner a tidy profit for the casino. That power is associated with some dark realities, as local governments stumble over each other to provide incentives (ahem!!) for these developments. Unfortunately, other than a limited number of jobs for locals and the ephemeral thrills derived by bettors, the ongoing operations of casinos do not provide much benefit to their local economies, and are very likely a drag on local growth. This is the subject of “A Good Way To Wreck a Local Economy: Build Casinos,” by David Frum in The Atlantic. Here is one of Frum’s nuggets:

“The impact of casinos on neighboring property values is “unambiguously negative,” according to the economists at the National Association of Realtors. Casinos don’t encourage non-gaming businesses to open nearby, because the people who most often visit casinos do not wander out to visit other shops and businesses. A casino is not like a movie theater or a sports stadium, offering a time-limited amusement. It is designed to be an all-absorbing environment that does not release its customers until they have exhausted their money.”

Glenn Reynolds, on his Instapundit blog, says:

“A casino is basically a sign that the local political class has wrecked things already enough that they need a new approach to squeeze sufficient graft out of the wreckage. That’s especially true now that casinos are common enough that they mostly draw from the (already economically suffering) local region.” 

I think Reynolds’ is referring to casinos that are subsidized by local governments with some degree of protection from local competition (which is afforded to some extent by laws that require casinos to “float”).

Frum makes much of the negative personal and social consequences of problem gambling. In light of his assertions, how could I support more general legalization? First, an end to subsidies for big casino developments would be an important step. Second, legal betting would expand personal liberty, which should be a sufficient justification. Legal or not, there will always be problem gamblers, but that’s not a good reason to curtail the rights of those capable of restraint. In addition, more general legalization would help keep local gambling dollars circulating locally, rather than sucked out of the local economy via casino profits or internet gambling. Another answer lies in what I suspect would be a less elastic supply of willing counterparty dollars, in a competitive environment (assuming an absence of subsidies to large gaming providers), to satisfy the presumed expansion of betting demand.

Let’s Confine Statists to the State Level

Tags

, , ,

federalism

That Washington is divided is well agreed. Philip Klein asserts that abandoning federalism is a root cause of the division. There is no doubt that expansion of federal power comes largely at the expense of states’ autonomy over their affairs. Federalism allows most issues to be settled at the state level, allowing for the adoption of substantially different policies across individual states. This means that government can be more responsive to differing regional preferences, that individuals with strong preferences can benefit by migrating across state lines, and that states can serve as laboratories for policy experiments. Given that preferences differ regionally and certain protections of states’ rights established by the constitution, there is no question that a consolidation of government functions at the federal level will mean greater difficulty in achieving any legislative agenda. That is a good thing, and it is a good reason to return to the federalist principles of state autonomy and a weak central government. Too often, federalism is supported only when it suits one’s politics. 

Celebrating Gains In Human Welfare

Tags

, , ,

human_achievement

It’s easy to be a pessimist, but step back with Matt Ridley and take a look at the accomplishments and advances in living conditions that the world continues to experience. You’ll feel much better! I could take issue with certain points: Ridley acts as if fascism is confined to a few despotic regimes worldwide, yet fascism has its roots in the subversion of specific government powers for private gain, what would usually be classified as successful rent-seeking behavior. In that sense, I believe the world is doing pretty well despite the commonality of fascist tendencies, but we could do much better.

Nevertheless, Ridley makes a number of excellent points. Here are a few of my favorites:

The average person on the planet earns roughly three times as much as he or she did 50 years ago, corrected for inflation. If anything, this understates the improvement in living standards because it fails to take into account many of the incredible improvements in the things you can buy with that money. However rich you were in 1964 you had no computer, no mobile phone, no budget airline, no Prozac, no search engine, no gluten-free food.

The average person lives about a third longer than 50 years ago and buries two thirds fewer of his or her children (and child mortality is the greatest measure of misery I can think of).

The amount of food available per head has gone up steadily on every continent, despite a doubling of the population. Famine is now very rare.

Despite what you may have read, there is no global increase in floods, cyclones, tornadoes, blizzards and wild fires — and there has been a decline in the severity of droughts. 

Globally, your probability of dying as a result of a drought, flood or storm is 98 per cent lower than it was in the 1920s.

As Steven Pinker documented in his book The Better Angels of Our Nature, the number of deaths in warfare is also falling, though far more erratically.

As for inequality, the world as a whole is getting rapidly more equal in income, because people in poor countries are getting richer at a more rapid pace than people in rich countries.

All true. Mark Perry has a good summary list of Ridley’s points. Ridley, author of The Rational Optimist, is no Pollyanna, though he knows that he risks being branded as such. He recognizes that there are significant threats to prosperity and that many challenges remain. Still, naysayers who lose sight of the extent of human achievement, and the conditions that give rise to it, often prescribe policies that would stand as obstacles to continued gains.

Unicorns, The State and Sustainability

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Unicorn-meat

Every time someone says “the government should …,” ask them to replace the “G word” with “politicians I actually know, running in electoral systems with voters and interest groups that actually exist.” Does the speaker still think “the government should?” It’s a good test suggested by Michael Munger in his article “Unicorn Governance.” His point is that nearly all calls for state intervention really profess a kind of belief in unicorns. So let’s remove the unicorn from the argument. He says:

My friends generally dislike politicians, find democracy messy and distasteful, and object to the brutality and coercive excesses of foreign wars, the war on drugs, and the spying of the NSA.

But their solution is, without exception, to expand the power of “the State.” That seems literally insane to me—a non sequitur of such monstrous proportions that I had trouble taking it seriously.

Along the same lines, Don Boudreaux at Cafe Hayek offers a quote from Matt Ridley’s book, The Rational Optimist:

Economists are quick to speak of ‘market failure’, and rightly so, but a greater threat comes from ‘government failure‘. Because it is a monopoly, government brings inefficiency and stagnation to most things it runs; government agencies pursue the inflation of their budgets rather than the service of their customers; pressure groups form an unholy alliance with agencies to extract more money from taxpayers for their members. Yet despite all this, most clever people still call for government to run more things and assume that if it did so, it would somehow be more perfect, more selfless, next time.

Finally, Boudreaux has a recent piece in which he proposes a little Platitude Test. Is the speaker offering up a platitude? Well, “ask yourself if you can imagine a normal human adult believing the opposite.” If so, then there is truly something of substance at issue. Boudreaux notes that this is usually not the case when the word “sustainability” is trotted out:

<

p style=”padding-left:30px;”>You’ll discover, of course, that you can’t imagine anyone seriously supporting ‘unsustainability.’ Therefore, you should conclude that mere expressions of support for ‘sustainability’ are empty. And they can be downright harmful if they mislead people into supporting counterproductive government policies. Substantive issues involving sustainability invoke questions that have non-obvious answers. For example: At what rate must the supply of a resource fall before we conclude that continued use of that resource is unsustainable?

Ultimately, market mechanisms are fabulous guardians of real sustainability, since they price scarce resources so as to allocate them efficiently across time and space, providing incentives for conservation, to bring forth new supplies of the resource, and to develop rational substitutes. Unicorns and the state don’t do nearly as well.

NOTE: I apologize for the haphazard formatting in this post. I cannot seem to get the editor to cooperate tonight. I had similar problems last night but resolved them, though not in a fully satisfactory way. Tonight the issues seem worse.