no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics

A Right Not Exercised is a Right Lost

October 10th, 2009

Justin Holmes gets “pulled over” for the non-crime of rollerblading, and rightly refuses to identify himself to law enforcement.  When asked why he’s being detained, the officer cites some local ordinance that prohibits rollerblading, which ordinance probably does not exist.

No matter, Justin’s exercise of certain rights guaranteed by the first, fourth, and fifth amendments to the U.S. constitution (and probably most State and Local legislation, too) are construed as “disrespectful”, so you see where this is probably going.  Fortunately, Justin stood his ground and shot this awesome footage to Vimeo.

(It’s a long video, Don’t show ID in New York State! so I’ve summarized some important exchanges below.)

The female officer (second on-scene) pulls out all the stops, with the “You could be a pedophile” line.

Female LEO: The reason why we ask you… thing is, why we ask that, is part of our job is to fight criminals. And we don’t know if you are, just by looking at you… When we encounter people, we gotta make sure they’re not wanted… So we run their name, it’s that simple…This particular situation is just to make sure that you’re not someone wanted, some pedophile that’s wanted, OK, that you’re not a fugitive of justice. [Justin has refused to present identification] We have to take your word for it?

Justin: Take my word for it, that’s right. In a free society, that’s right.

Eventually, I guess, they decide that there are no dangerous rollerblading pedophiles named Justin Holmes in the New York area, but he’s not going to get off that easy.  At one point, the male officer tells Justin to take off his skates and walk home without his shoes on. He asks whether he can skate on the sidewalk, and is told that he cannot. The male officer repeats, that “there is an ordinance.” Remember this lie.

Justin: I do need to know the number of the ordinance.

Male LEO: I’m not going to bother with that because I’m not going to charge you with it.

This is also very interesting, telling, actually, because SOP dictate that “disrespectful” folks like Justin are subject to additional charges like “resisting arrest” or “obstruction”.

The encounter culminates in an attempt to “run him out of town.” At this point, the officer has already informed Justin that rollerblading is illegal in the Village. He’s even said that it’s illegal to do it on the sidewalk (highly suspect). Justin says that he’s prepared to walk, to which the officer says he wants him out of town, the quickest, safest way possible—the clear implication being that Justin should skate his way out of town.

Male LEO: I don’t want you in this village. So I’m gonna be the nice guy and make it so you can get out of this village in the easiest safest and quick way, you tell me what that is…

Justin: I would like to simply skate on the sidewalk but it’s not clear to me if that’s legal.

Male LEO: Then do it and get out of here.

Justin: Is that legal?

Male LEO: I didn’t say it. Do it and get out of here. ‘Cause I really don’t want you in this village.

Justin is understandably confused, and again inquires about the legality of such behavior. The officer refuses to positively respond to Justin’s reasonably inquiries.

At 26:12 the female LEO says that it is indeed legal, very legal.

If rollerblading in the street really is illegal in Port Dick, then these officers collectively wasted about an hour and twenty minutes arguing with  someone who in their opinion was “ignorant” and “disrespectful” during a justifiable detention, and they’re simply going to let him skate his way out of town?

I’m sorry, but this doesn’t pass the smell test: If you’re going to let the guy walk under these circumstances, then why detain him in the first place?  You wouldn’t, unless you were just flexing your badge; being an asshole just because you can be an asshole and nobody will do anything about it.

The only logical conclusion is that Justin didn’t do anything against the law, and the officers knew it.

Some people say, “Well Justin should’ve just shown his ID to the cops, this could’ve all been over in a few seconds if he had just complied.” But it could’ve all been over, in fact the entire encounter need never have occurred, had the officer simply stopped him briefly and said, “Hey kid, it’s not safe and/or illegal to skate in the street, stay on the sidewalk and have a safe trip home.”

What’s Behind the High Price of Gold?

October 8th, 2009

Do not be distracted by headlines touting Gold’s “record high” (closed today at $1054.80).  George Washington (of Washington’s Blog) prudently notes that gold’s nominal high is not quite one-half of it’s inflation adjusted all-time high, and cautions a reversal if the USD strengthens.

Historical price of gold; inflation-adjusted real dollars

So, will the dollar strengthen?  I find this implausible, to say the least (likewise, GW suggests “the dollar will get creamed in the long-run”). I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but this means things might get worse.  Way worse.

Far more important that the elementary observation of a “high” price, is determining why the price is high.  Some analysts now are saying that the nominal increase in the price of gold is due only to a “weak dollar”. Weak currency = lower purchasing power = higher nominal prices. D’uh!

Presently, the dollar is weak because of crazy amounts of inflation and debt being piled up in attempt to sustain the musical-chairs of perpetually rising prices (often misinterpreted as indicators of economic well-being) which phenomenon was itself brought into existence principally by monetary expansion at the hands of the Federal Reserve. Recently, the Fed announced plans to absorb another $1.25 Trillion in (probably toxic) mortgage-backed securities.

Federal Reserve Bank Liabilities

When gold was at its all-time high, the eventual “strengthening” of the USD was brought about by prime rates in the neighborhood of 15%. They got away with it in the early 1980s, but I do not believe that policy makers have the stones to pull out those sort of stops today.

The economy is not recovering.  Unemployment is 10%+ right now. Baby boomers are staring at an extra decade of nine-to-five since their retirement plans got the FUBAR treatment last year. Businesses aren’t hiring, they aren’t developing and they’re not investing; they’re hunkering down and trying to lean it out. Meanwhile, people are being tossed out of their homes because they can’t make the ARM payment.

Now imagine three times worse than that: Soup lines. Hoover blankets. Mortgages at 15% and 20% car notes. One-in-four Americans out of work. Would the people tolerate this? I hope they would not—you couldn’t lead lambs to this sort of slaughter.

So, you can’t but the brakes on it. But you can’t keep it going, either, without ultimately finding yourself neck-deep in hyperinflation, Zimbabwe style. The alternative is to try and avoid a total financial SHTF and economic collapse, by engineering instead a sustained period of economic stagnation, a long and painful restructuring.

Pick your poison.

Property Rights Do Not Justify Sexual Harassment

September 29th, 2009

To extrapolate from a sample size of exactly one (who has, if I’m not mistaken, previously defended such absurdities as “slavery contracts”), a singular, authoritative “anarcho-capitalist” ethos[1], is the apex of ridiculousity. With that out of the way, François Tremblay is tilting at strawmen again. Quoting Block, Tremblay takes issue[2] with:

Another type of pinching or sexual harassment is that between a secretary and her boss. Although to many people, and especially to many people in the women’s liberation movement, there is no real difference between this pinching and the pinching that occurs on the street, the fact is that the pinching that takes place between a secretary and her boss, while objectionable to many women, is not a coercive action. It is not a coercive action like the pinching that takes place in the public sphere because it is part of a package deal: the secretary agrees to all aspects of the job when she agrees to accept the job and especially when she agrees to keep the job.

Specifically, Tremblay charges:

Once you accept that much degree of control over other people’s actions, then you can justify any degree of control. “Anarcho”-capitalists will complain that Block’s ravings are not indicative of their beliefs, but they will remain utterly unable to explain why he’s wrong without contradicting their own beliefs

Block’s argument is so stupid that I feel dirty just knowing that some readers might interpret this as a positive defense of his argument. I do not[3].  To the extent that Block believes an ambiguous employment agreement grants the employer unlimited license to molest his employees, absolutely he is a raving ass. This does not mean that the entire corpus of “anarcho-capitalist” ethics is wrong, only that maybe this particular belief is wrong, or does not follow, or is improperly framed, etc.  A reappraisal:

Either the secretary agreed to the circumstances explicitly set forth by the terms of whatever agreement she reached with her employer, or she did not.

If you know your neighbor has a rule, that any visitor to his house is obligated to wear the “funny hat“, you can’t barge in to his kitchen and refuse to wear the “funny hat”. You either wear it, or you befriend someone else. If she does not agree to the terms ex ante, having been fully informed, then she ought not take the job in the first place.

If she did not agree to be sexually harassed because these terms were not presented to her, then there was no meeting of the minds, and on general principles of law and reason, the uninvited and unwelcome intrusion into her personal space—indeed her being—is in-fact coercive, and worthy of derision. Ergo, Block is an ass, and wrong to-boot.

If she did agree (in which case it’s not harassment), and later decides she is no longer satisfied with the arrangements, then no the employer is guilty of no specific wrongdoing, and yes she ought to leave. Further, her withdrawal of consent may not be construed as breach of contract since such interpretation essentially permits unlimited license over another (i.e., “slavery contracts”).

Does it boil down to “property” at some level? Kind of, but not really. At least not entirely, as Tremblay presumes. “Property” is not the whole story, nor is it even a crucial determinant in evaluating this scenario. Block is wrong, not because of his belief in property rights, but because an argument resting solely on this premise is as stupid as a football bat.

+++

  1. I do not consider myself an anarcho-capitalist
  2. Walter Block is wrong
  3. Comments suggesting that I support such a stupid argument will be redacted or deleted at my discretion

no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics