Jul 23, 2019 | Politics
...and finds it wanting.Writes Elan Journo on Hazony's book, The Virtue of Nationalism:Hazony presents a conception of nationalism with soft edges, one that is supposedly compatible with some measure of liberty. And therein lies part of the book’s danger. It is calm, erudite, and theory-heavy. The book attempts to provide a serious, intellectual case for embracing nationalism.[...]Hazony repudiates the Enlightenment view of individuals as sovereign and capable of using reason to attain truths about the world.
[...]What really happens in societies where reason and individual rights are dropped out of the picture, where each tribe/nation is left to do its own thing? At least two things are clear: First, such societies are highly tribal. People define themselves primarily, if not exclusively, by their tribal or racial identity, while viewing outsiders as less-than-human, because they were born to the “wrong” tribe/race. Second, and crucially, the door is left wide open for disagreements and enmities to be resolved through brutality, not persuasion, because outsiders are seen as innately inferior, wrong, unreachable. For example, consider the tribal wars that have decimated Africa. A notorious example is Rwanda’s tribal war in 1994, which claimed upwards of 800,000 lives. Or look at the repeated eruption of tribal/nationalist wars in the Balkans. There, during the early 1990s, we witnessed the return of “ethnic cleansing” and concentration camps. These are manifestations of tribal/national groups jockeying for collective self-determination.[...]To unpack Hazony’s argument is to see that his conception of nationalism is fundamentally opposed to the ideal of freedom."
In today's age of a return to nationalism, Journo's insightful analysis is a must-read.Link: The Vice of Nationalism Jul 22, 2019 | Business, Politics
A new Institute for Justice study (PDF), made possible through the support of the John Templeton Foundation, finds the nation’s largest forfeiture program does not help police fight crime. Instead, the study indicates police use forfeiture to boost revenue—in other words, to police for profit. The IJ study, “Fighting Crime or Raising Revenue? Testing Opposing Views of Forfeiture,” combines local crime, drug use and economic data from a variety of federal sources with more than a decade’s worth of data from the Department of Justice’s equitable sharing program. Equitable sharing lets state and local law enforcement cooperate with the Drug Enforcement Administration and other DOJ agencies on forfeiture cases and receive up to 80% of the proceeds.The study—the most extensive and sophisticated of its kind—calls into question whether distributing billions of dollars in forfeiture proceeds improves police effectiveness. The new evidence undercuts claims by prominent forfeiture supporters, such as former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who called forfeiture an “important tool that can be used to combat crime, particularly drug abuse,” and Attorney General William Barr, who, while acknowledging “problems and potential abuses,” called forfeiture “a valuable tool in law enforcement.”Specifically, the study finds:- More forfeiture proceeds do not translate into more crimes solved, despite claims forfeiture gives law enforcement more resources to fight crime.
- More forfeiture proceeds also do not mean less drug use, even though forfeiture supposedly rids the streets of drugs by crippling drug dealers and cartels financially.
- When local economies suffer, forfeiture activity increases, suggesting police make greater use of forfeiture when local budgets are tight. A 1 percentage point increase in local unemployment—a standard proxy for fiscal stress—is associated with a statistically significant 9 percentage point increase in seizures of property for forfeiture.
“These results add to a growing body of evidence suggesting that forfeiture’s value in crime fighting is exaggerated and that police do use forfeiture to raise revenue,” said Dr. Brian Kelly, associate professor of economics at Seattle University and the study’s author. “Given this evidence and the serious civil liberties concerns raised by forfeiture, forfeiture proponents should bear the burden of proof when opposing reforms that would keep police focused on fighting crime, not raising revenue.”The scale of federal forfeiture is vast. Between 2001 and 2017, the federal government’s two main forfeiture funds took in close to $40 billion, and the funds’ net assets have surpassed $4 billion in every year since 2013. From 2000 to 2016, the DOJ’s equitable sharing program made more than 660,000 distributions totaling over $6.8 billion to state and local law enforcement. Distributions fell following modest reforms introduced by former Attorney General Eric Holder in 2015. However, former Attorney General Sessions reversed the Holder reforms in 2017. Detailed data following this reversal are not yet available.“This study shows policymakers can undertake serious and much-needed forfeiture reforms without jeopardizing police effectiveness,” said Lee McGrath, IJ’s senior legislative counsel. “Congress should abolish equitable sharing, and in the meantime, states should opt out of the program. And lawmakers should eliminate the financial incentives in both state and federal forfeiture laws that encourage the pursuit of revenue over the pursuit of justice.”Since the Institute for Justice began its End Forfeiture initiative in 2010, 32 states and the District of Columbia have enacted forfeiture reforms. Seven states and the district have largely opted out of equitable sharing, limiting law enforcement’s ability to receive funding through the program and making it harder for law enforcement to circumvent state civil forfeiture laws. And in 2015, New Mexico abolished civil forfeiture, replacing it with criminal forfeiture and requiring that all forfeiture proceeds be deposited in the state’s general fund. In February, IJ secured a landmark victory in Timbs v. Indiana, where the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that state civil forfeiture cases are bound by the Eighth Amendment’s ban on “excessive fines.” - Made available through ij.org Jul 3, 2019 | Politics
https://youtu.be/hCu5EgK5TdYMichael Strong discusses the importance of holding Socratic dialogues in the classroom to foster thinking of complex subjects.
Jul 3, 2019 | Politics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xQxjosx-dkYaron Brook, Onkar Ghate, Brian Amerige, and Gregory Salmieri join Dave Rubin to discuss the growing threat to free speech, the Google leak, Project Veritas, free speech, YouTube demonetization, fake news, and more.
May 31, 2019 | Politics
Alan Dershowitz, a former Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School, has penned a scathing editorial on Robert Mueller's comment that “if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.”As a prosecutor Mueller is not in a position to determine guilt or innocence -- that decision "requires a full adversarial trial with a zealous defense attorney, vigorous cross examination, exclusionary rules of evidence and other due process safeguards.According to Dershowitz "prosecutors can only conclude whether there is sufficient evidence to commence a prosecution."Writes Dershowitz in The Hill:
By putting his thumb, indeed his elbow, on the scale of justice in favor of impeachment based on obstruction of justice, Mueller has revealed his partisan bias. He also has distorted the critical role of a prosecutor in our justice system.....No responsible prosecutor should ever suggest that the subject of his investigation might indeed be guilty even if there was insufficient evidence or other reasons not to indict. ....federal investigations by prosecutors, including special counsels, are by their very nature one-sided. They hear only evidence of guilt and not exculpatory evidence. Their witnesses are not subject to the adversarial process. There is no cross examination. The evidence is taken in secret behind the closed doors of a grand jury. For that very reason, prosecutors can only conclude whether there is sufficient evidence to commence a prosecution. They are not in a position to decide whether the subject of the investigation is guilty or is innocent of any crimes.That determination of guilt or innocence requires a full adversarial trial with a zealous defense attorney, vigorous cross examination, exclusionary rules of evidence and other due process safeguards. Such safeguards were not present in this investigation, and so the suggestion by Mueller that Trump might well be guilty deserves no credence.No prosecutor should ever say or do anything for the purpose of helping one party or the other. I cannot imagine a plausible reason why Mueller went beyond his report and gratuitously suggested that President Trump might be guilty, except to help Democrats in Congress and to encourage impeachment talk and action. Shame on Mueller for abusing his position of trust and for allowing himself to be used for such partisan advantage. [Dershowitz: Shame on Robert Mueller for exceeding his role | The Hill]
His new book is “The Case Against the Democratic House Impeaching Trump.”
May 24, 2019 | Politics
Richard Salsman and Andrew Bernstein will be speaking live at TOS-Con this August in Park City Utah.If you are in the area don't miss out on a chance to hear these amazing speakers.Dr. Salsman will be speaking on “Democratic Socialism”: The Whitewashing of Evil and Dr. Bernstein on The Trader Principle and the Harmony of Rational Values. Here are the descriptions:“Democratic Socialism”: The Whitewashing of Evil by Richard Salsman
Socialism has been proposed and practiced in numerous forms since the 1830s, including “utopian” socialism, Marxian socialism, national socialism, Christian socialism, and agrarian socialism. In its most virulent forms—as enacted in Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Red China, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela—the result has been mass misery, mass poverty, and mass murder. Some dismiss such cases as unrepresentative of “true” socialism, claiming that “real” socialism is peaceful, progressive, and morally correct. Many socialists in America today aim to enact it slowly, consensually, and electorally, calling their version “democratic socialism.” This ruse has taken hold already in Europe and is now fast-gaining adherents in America, especially among the young. In this talk, Richard Salsman will examine the means by which so-called “democratic socialism” is gaining ground. He will also zero in on the fundamental principles that people must understand and embrace to defeat it and to advance the only genuinely moral and practical social system: laissez-faire capitalism.
The Trader Principle and the Harmony of Rational Values by Andrew Bernstein
An important moral principle underlying civilized society is that of trade: All exchange of values must proceed by mutual consent and to mutual advantage of all parties involved. This principle applies not only to material values, such as food and medicine, bt also to spiritual values, such as friendship and romance. To the extent that people understand and uphold the trader principle, they can live in harmony. To the extent that they don’t, they suffer discord and sometimes violence. In this talk, Andrew Bernstein will examine the trader principle from multiple perspectives, concretizing it in myriad ways and showing its ubiquity in rational relationships. Whatever your current understanding, you will leave with a greater ability to apply the principle in your own life, to articulate it to others, and to advance civilized society.
Link: TOS-Con 2019Below are videos of talks by the dynamic duo of philosopher and economist from last year's conference.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siOQpNYl6mAMay 11, 2019 | Politics
Writes Jason Crawford on One man's junk in his insightful Roots of Progress blog:
“Natural resources” are anything but.
I have said this before in the sense that everything we get from nature comes in an inconvenient form: metals must be extracted from their ores; grain must be milled or threshed and the wheat separated from its chaff; crude oil must be refined into its constituent weights.
But the more philosophical point is that all resources are the product of the human mind. A “natural” resource is only a resource at all in the context of a particular technology. It is only a resource to someone who can look at it and understand its use and value. And it is only a resource to someone who has the technology and the capital to extract it from its environment and put it to that use.
You can see this in the stories of the early development of industries.
Before the oil industry, there were known places where oily sludge or tar would seep out of the ground; people might skim some of it off a pond to light a torch, but no one was drilling it and no one considered it “black gold”.
The Marquette Iron Range near Lake Superior, which disrupted compass readings and attracted lightning, was known to local Chippewa tribes only as the home of a thunder god, until miners arrived to prospect and extract the ore.
The Chinchas Islands off the coast of Peru, covered in seagull droppings, were for a time the most valuable real estate in the world, owing to the value of guano as fertilizer—but before that discovery I can only imagine that sailors literally steered clear of them, owing to the overpowering stench.
But you can see the principle perhaps most starkly in the stories of valuable resources that were once considered waste products of industrial processes.
Crawford then goes on to list and elaborate on resources that were once waste products: natural gas, portland cement and cast iron.
