no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics

“People should be able to dance where they want”

June 9th, 2008

Last week, heavily armed cops dressed in commando-style uniforms burst into the west-side Detroit art gallery. (permalink PDF)

The raid carried out on the non-profit Contemporary Art Institute of Detroit wasn’t a well-coordinated sting operation to bust known
criminals. It wasn’t a mistake; the cops didn’t kick down the wrong door, which I suppose makes the situation all the more frightening. No, this vulgar display of force, done in the name of law and order, was carried out to prevent people from peacefully congregating and enjoying some artwork and refreshments with like-minded individuals.

Despite not finding any drugs, weapons, or people with outstanding warrants in attendance, Johnny Law stands to collect more than $50,000 in punitive fines and impound fees, so it wasn’t entirely unproductive. On the contrary, it was probably quite profitable. Bravo, lads. Bravo.

To the police, CAID was a blind pig, where people were buying beer after hours. They handed out 130 tickets for loitering in a place where alcohol was being sold illegally and impounded 44 cars, which cost $900 to get back.

To serve and protect, indeed. One point of contention is that CAID has not obtained a dancing permit from the government. Another is that some people were drinking or selling beer without a permit. The very existence of such requirements is preposterous.

Free men do not ask for permits to congregate peacefully and express themselves (both, by the way, rights enshrined in The Bill of Rights). A permit is a signal of obedience. It is accepting the State’s line, that without the permit, you don’t have the right to do something.

At least CAID gives no immediate indication of backing down: A CAID spokesperson said that, “People should be able to dance where they want.”

Damn straight.

Blight

June 2nd, 2008

Let’s say you and several neighbors live near an eyesore. If you don’t like the maintenance of that property, you should do it yourself. This means that the several of you could pitch together to purchase the blighted property, and transform it into something useful like a park or open space for your common enjoyment. But he fears, as we’ve seen, that zoning laws prevent people from improving their lots (no pun intended) individually, or collectively. If the current owner held allodial title, or a claim to allodial title, instead of the quasi-feudal title we refer to as “fee simple”, this would not be a problem. But because of land patents, through which the government declares its violent intentions against all contest, you can’t acquire allodial title.

A friend of mine lives next door to what could properly be described as “blighted” property. It is a 60+ year old dwelling in serious disrepair: there are no appliances, the garage is falling over and is a likely haven for rats, the floors and walls show signs of damage throughout, it was once home to no less than 7 dogs and several cats, and bears the telltale smell of urine that is always present where people neglect to properly train, care for, or clean up after their pets. The previous tenant has been foreclosed on, and the house sits vacant, with a list price of perhaps half of what my friend paid for his adjacent house, about 7 years ago. Even at this price, it is probably overvalued.

My friend has considered trying to purchase this adjacent parcel and combine lots, rather than sell his own house and move elsewhere. Doing so would allow him to expand and remodel his own house, and provide a larger yard for his daughter, his dogs, and entertaining. Unfortunately, he’s afraid that our municipality may very well not let him combine lots, because in doing so the tax base decreases.

Contrast these scenarios with what governments routinely do: If you want to improve the neighborhood, it’s nearly impossible to do so. If the government wants to “improve the neighborhood” (or enrich its patrons), it simply shuts off the utilities and declares the properties blighted, and then “reclaims” them under the principle of eminent domain. If, as an individual, you sabotaged your neighbors plumbing and then tried to take his property, you’d be branded a criminal. When government does it, we call it “urban renewal”.

Innocent Until…?

May 30th, 2008

Until proven guilty, right?

Unless the State withholds exculpatory evidence and convicts you anyways. And then maybe 26 years of three-hots-and-a-cot later, you might be exonerated.

As long as the justice system incentivizes convictions, in lieu of incentivizing the protection of innocents, there will be people like Walter Swift, who suffer unjustly (permalink PDF):

After an 11-year campaign, the Innocence Project — the legal group headed by Barry Scheck that investigates wrongful convictions — convinced Wayne County prosecutors to dismiss the charges against Swift based on a faulty identification by the victim and biological tests that indicated Swift probably was not her attacker. The evidence never was presented at trial. (emphasis added)

Swift spent the last 26 years of his life in prison for a crime it seems he didn’t commit. Twenty-six years is about half of one’s working, productive life. Twenty-six years from his prime and well in to middle-age. Twenty-six years without a family. It is unlikely that Swift will be compensated for these injustices, and even if he’s lucky enough to receive some sort of damages, he’ll never receive a fraction of what’s been taken from him.

Walter Swift can never get those 26 years back.

no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics