Category: reason

Today’s environmental activists are so hostile to capitalism that they end up killing animals they want to protect.

Like the African rhinoceros.

Poachers kill them to get their horns, which can sell for as much as $300,000. Poachers mostly sell in China and Vietnam, to people who carve them into ornaments or sell them as aphrodisiacs. By the way: The aphrodisiacs don’t work.

When I started Stossel TV, my first video covered one man’s attempt to reduce rhino poaching by flooding the market with fake horns.

Matthew Markus argued that his 3D printed rhino horn would reduce demand for real horns.

“One way to devalue something is to create a lot of it,” he explained. “When things are abundant, people don’t fight, kill or steal.”

True. Bootleggers and Al Capone’s thugs disappeared when America ended Prohibition.

South Africa, home to the largest number of rhinos, once tried something similar. For 20 years, they allowed people to own rhinos and sell their horns. Rhino farmers put the rhinos to sleep with tranquilizer darts, sawed off their horns (the horns grow back) and sold the horn.

Farmers had an incentive to protect rhinos. South Africa’s rhino population quadrupled.

But in 2009, under pressure from “environmental” groups, South Africa banned sales of horn again.

The sad result: Poaching increased sharply. Poachers also killed park rangers who tried to protect rhinos.

So, I confronted Masha Kalinina of the Humane Society, one of many groups that called Markus’ plan to sell 3D printed horn “greenwashing an illegal activity.”

Kalinina said legalization might increase demand for real rhino horn, as did happen once with elephant tusks.

“It started up a new carving industry in China that had been dormant for decades,” she said.

I pushed back: “It needs to be long enough to bring the prices down, and then people say, ‘Eh, there’s no money in poaching.'”

“The problem is that people still see animals as commodities!” Kalinina responded, “natural resources for their use.”

Well, yes. I do. So what? I eat eggs. Chickens are plentiful because people like me pay for what chickens produce.

Kalinina sneered, “Are we really going to just farm every single animal on this planet so we can endlessly continue supplying this bloodlust and thirst of people to consume wildlife products?”

“Bloodlust?” Give me a break.

Even if you oppose people using animal products, banning sales doesn’t stop the use. It just creates black markets and crime.

Far better is letting rhino farmers trim horns and sell them. Farming gives people incentive to protect rhinos from poachers. That saves both rhinos and human lives.

When I told Kalinina, “your bans have failed… they are cruel to both rhinos and people,” she replied that “education” is the way to stop poaching. The Humane Society runs ads in Vietnam telling people that rhino horns have no medical value. They claim this campaign convinced many people.

“But what good did it do?” I asked. “People are still poaching the rhinos.”

“It takes time,” she replied. “Time for the trickle-down effect.”

It’s nice that the Humane Society tries to convince people not to buy horn, but it’s outrageous that their hatred of capitalism blinds them to better ideas.

“It’s like the drug war,” I point out. “You can ban things, but if there’s money to be made, poachers will kill animals.”

“This is an endless argument,” she replied. “We can’t live in a lawless society.”

But markets are not “lawless.”

Legal rhino farming or selling fake horn, would save endangered animals. But the environmental groups just can’t see that.

Now researchers from the University of Oxford have produced a new form of fake rhino horn that they say would reduce demand for poached horn.

“Environmental” groups oppose that, too.

Fortunately, South Africa wised up. After my video was first broadcast, officials decided to ignore the complaints from the environmental groups. They re-legalized sales of farmed rhino horn.

After that, the killing of rhinos fell dramatically.

COPYRIGHT 2021 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3pIa1BS
via IFTTT

Former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin is scheduled to be tried next month on murder and manslaughter charges in connection with the May 25 arrest of George Floyd, who died while Chauvin kneeled on his neck for more than eight minutes. Yet whether or not Chauvin is convicted, it is not at all clear that he can be held accountable for his actions that day under a federal statute that authorizes lawsuits against government officials who violate people’s constitutional rights.

Despite the details of Floyd’s death, which shocked Americans of all political persuasions and provoked a series of protests across the country, the federal civil rights lawsuit that his family filed last July must overcome “qualified immunity.” That widely criticized doctrine, which the Supreme Court invented in 1982, bars such claims unless the misconduct they allege violated “clearly established” rights, which has proven to be a formidable obstacle for victims of outrageous police abuse.

Given the way that federal judges have applied qualified immunity, Floyd’s relatives may not get their day in court unless the precedents they cite involve conduct very similar to Chauvin’s. As UCLA law professor Joanna Schwartz, a leading critic of the doctrine, puts it, they “would have to find cases in which earlier defendants were found to have violated the law in precisely the same way.”

After turning away a bunch of opportunities to restrict or reconsider qualified immunity last year, the Supreme Court recently suggested that the defense has been read too broadly. This week it vacated a decision in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit granted qualified immunity to a correctional officer who allegedly blasted a prisoner in the face with pepper spray “for no reason at all.”

While the 5th Circuit agreed that such unprovoked use of pepper spray would violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment, it said the issue was not “beyond debate” at the time of the alleged assault. Think again, the Supreme Court said on Monday, calling the 5th Circuit’s attention to a 2020 case involving a prisoner named Trent Michael Taylor, who was confined for six days in “a pair of shockingly unsanitary cells.”

As the Supreme Court noted in November, the first cell was “covered, nearly floor to ceiling,” in feces, while the second was “frigidly cold” and “equipped with only a clogged drain in the floor to dispose of bodily wastes.” Because Taylor had no clothing and no bunk, “he was left to sleep naked in sewage.”

In that case too, the 5th Circuit recognized an Eighth Amendment violation but concluded that prison officials did not have “‘fair warning’ that their specific acts were unconstitutional.” The Supreme Court disagreed, saying “no reasonable correctional officer could have concluded” that “it was constitutionally permissible to house Taylor in such deplorably unsanitary conditions for such an extended period of time.”

Whether or not the Court follows through on its apparent willingness to rein in qualified immunity, Congress could abolish the defense, which has no statutory basis. But with a few honorable exceptions, Republicans have shown little inclination to do so—a prohibitive obstacle with the Senate evenly divided.

Colorado exemplified a more promising strategy last June, when it passed a groundbreaking law that authorizes claims against police officers who violate rights protected by the state constitution. Connecticut legislators approved a similar law in August, and last week the New Mexico House of Representatives passed a broader bill that would cover all government officials.

All three measures specify that defendants cannot block lawsuits by claiming qualified immunity. To address the concern that personal liability could have a chilling effect on legitimate policing, they require government agencies to cover litigation costs and damages in all or nearly all cases.

These laws show that states need not wait for Congress or the Supreme Court to act. They can independently provide a remedy for citizens whose rights would otherwise be violated with impunity.

© Copyright 2021 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2P1yCVr
via IFTTT

The American restaurant industry continues to hemorrhage money as local governments around the U.S. restrict indoor dining options in order to keep COVID-19 cases at bay. With other parts of the economy still lagging and many Americans still unemployed, Congressional Democrats want to pass another large COVID-19 relief package.

Except this time, Democrats want to provide that relief by doubling the federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $15 an hour. As part of that effort, Democrats also want to completely eliminate the tipped minimum wage—a lower hourly rate paid to certain workers in the hospitality industry. The federal tipped minimum wage is currently $2.13 an hour and many workers who receive it make up the difference (and then some) with tips from customers. The COVID-19 relief bill could raise that amount to $15 an hour.

As I wrote last month, the Democrats’ latest spending effort would likely require many of the bill’s intended recipients to seek relief from the relief. Though some employees may see a bump in pay, others would lose their jobs entirely. In a recent report, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour would lift 900,000 people out of poverty while pushing 1.4 million people out of work.

That effect would arguably be even more pronounced in the restaurant industry, which would see labor costs increase up to 700 percent, as opposed to the mere 200 percent faced by businesses whose employees already make $7.25 an hour. (If tipped-wage workers are not able to pull in the equivalent of the full federal minimum wage, employers are already required by law to make up the difference.)

In good times, the restaurant industry operates on profit margins of around 6 percent. But things aren’t normal right now. As of December, restaurant closures were up 32 percent year over year as businesses grapple with COVID-19 restrictions that have hamstrung their operations, particularly for eateries in downtown areas that rely on tourists and office workers for business.

This debate isn’t new. An example: In the summer of 2018, voters in Washington, D.C., passed Initiative 77, a measure that axed the tipped minimum wage. It drew a hearty backlash from restaurant workers, who lobbied to have the measure overturned. (The D.C. Council obliged.)

New York City has not done away with its tipped wage entirely, but it has continued to increase it over time. After the city increased the tipped minimum to $10 an hour in 2019, hundreds of restaurants reported that they would have to cut employee hours, with just under half of respondents saying they would eliminate jobs entirely.

A bump in pay might sound nice—until you’re let go. A study conducted by researchers at Harvard Business School using data from Yelp concluded that “a one-dollar increase in the minimum wage leads to a 14 percent increase in the likelihood of exit for a 3.5-star restaurant.”

Some Democrats are skeptical of the proposal. “If the minimum wage provision is in the bill with the elimination of the tip credit, it would make it very hard for me to support it,” Sen. Angus King (I–Maine), who typically votes with Democrats, told The Wall Street Journal. “A lot of restaurants are just hanging on by the thread.”

Without King’s support, and without the backing of other moderates like Sens. Kyrsten Sinema (D–Ariz.) and Joe Manchin (D–W.Va.), it’s doubtful that Democrats will be able to muscle a massive minimum wage increase through budget reconciliation. But this debate could be coming to a city near you.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3kjmgnu
via IFTTT

From today’s decision, by Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell (M.D. Fla.):

{The following statement of facts is derived from Plaintiff’s Complaint, the allegations of which the Court must accept as true in ruling on the instant Motion to Dismiss.} On February 26, 2012, twenty-nine year-old George Zimmerman discharged a single shot to stop seventeen year-old Trayvon Martin from assaulting him, following an incident between the two at the Retreat at Twin Lakes townhome community in  Sanford, Florida where Zimmerman lived and was a member of the neighborhood watch.

Zimmerman was charged with second-degree murder and acquitted by a jury on July 13, 2013. He and his family have been the target of death threats ever since. Due to the massive publicity after the shooting, the nationwide protests demanding his arrest without cause, the subsequent 2013 trial and his acquittal of all charges, and the acts of protest and violence that continue to this day in the name of Trayvon Martin, Zimmerman alleges that his name is 100% synonymous with Trayvon Martin and the incident that resulted in Martin’s death.

The actions giving rise to this lawsuit occurred on February 5, 2020. That day, defendant Pete Buttigieg made the following tweet:

Buttigieg is an American politician and was a 2020 candidate for the Democratic Party nomination for President of the United States of America. He allegedly had 1,600,000 followers on … Twitter ….

Elizabeth Warren, a nationally known public figure and 2020 candidate for the Democratic party nomination for President of the United States, also tweeted about Trayvon Martin that day. She tweeted the following statement to her 3,600,000 followers on Twitter:

The court dismissed the lawsuit because it concluded that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Buttigieg and Warren, but in a way that should be easily cured by amendment:

The parties have both discussed the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling on a very similar case, Internet Sols. Corp. v. Marshall (Fla. 2010)[, which held] … that “allegedly defamatory material about a Florida resident placed on the Web and accessible in Florida constitutes an ‘electronic communication into Florida’ when the material is accessed (or ‘published’) in Florida.” …

“In the context of the World Wide Web, given its pervasiveness, an alleged tortfeasor who posts allegedly defamatory material on a website has intentionally made the material almost instantly available everywhere the material is accessible. By posting allegedly defamatory material on the Web about a Florida resident, the poster has directed the communication about a Florida resident to readers worldwide, including potential readers within Florida. When the posting is then accessed by a third party in Florida, the material has been “published” in Florida and the poster has communicated the material “into” Florida, thereby committing the tortious act of defamation within Florida.” …

The Eleventh Circuit has since followed this reasoning, though in an unreported decision, in finding that personal jurisdiction did not exist based on the plaintiff’s allegations as to defamation….

Applying the rationale of the Florida Supreme Court in Internet Sols., the Court finds that Zimmerman has not pleaded sufficient facts to show that Defendants committed a tortious act within Florida such that long-arm jurisdiction exists. The complaint alleges merely that Defendants’ tweets received national media coverage, and in particular in the state of Florida, including but not limited to Polk County. There is not one allegation that either tweet was directed to a specific person in Florida or accessed by a person in this forum.

{The Court notes that Warren’s tweet is specifically directed to Trayvon Martin’s mother, Sybrina Fulton, by use of “@SybrinaFulton,” which is in blue font and indicates she is a user of the platform. Additionally, “Trayvon’s family and friends” are also referenced in the tweet. This distinguishes Warren’s Tweet from that of Buttigieg, which does not reference any specific person or group. However, there is still no indication that Sybrina Fulton and/or Trayvon’s family and friends were residing in Florida at the time of the tweets, and the Court will not infer such.} The mere fact that the material was accessible in Florida is not enough to plead the publication element of defamation, and therefore, the commission of a tortious act in this state…. Having determined that long-arm jurisdiction [under Florida law] does not exist, the Court need not address whether the exercise of jurisdiction would offend the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

I expect that the Tweet was indeed read in Florida, by some of the millions of Buttigieg’s and Warren’s followers, so I would think that Zimmerman might be able to amend the Complaint to so allege. And on two substantive points, the court ruled in favor of Zimmerman:

[1.] Defendants argue that their tweets are not about Zimmerman, do not mention his name at all, nor imply anything about him. This argument relates to the second element of the tort, falsity, as the false statement must be of or concerning the plaintiff…. [But] it does not appear that there is a strict requirement, in Florida, that the author of the defamatory publication specifically identify a person by name for the statement to be actionable…. Certainly, a tortfeasor could juxtapose a series of facts in such a way that a specific person is identifiable even though that person’s name has not been used….

[T]he complaint alleges generally that “[t]he name ‘George Zimmerman’ is 100% synonymous with Trayvon Martin and the incident that resulted in the death of Trayvon Martin.” Taking this allegation as true, Zimmerman plausibly alleges that the tweets, when considered as a whole, included an implied or indirect reference to him due to the incident resulting in Trayvon Martin’s death. As such, the Court disagrees that the failure to name Zimmerman in the tweets subjects the claims to dismissal.

[2.] Defendants’ next argument, that the tweets are true statements, questions, and pure opinion, is a challenge to the falsity element of defamation…. Zimmerman alleges that because of his role in Martin’s death, these tweets promote the idea that he killed Trayvon Martin because of racism or white supremacy. He also alleges that a jury acquitted him based on evidence he was acting in self-defense. While the statements, taken alone, are true, the complaint plausibly alleges that when taken together they could suggest what Zimmerman contends.

Moreover, construing the allegations of the complaint as true, it is not clear that the tweets constitute pure opinion. “Under Florida law, a defendant publishes a ‘pure opinion’ when the defendant makes a comment or opinion based on facts which are set forth in the publication or which are otherwise known or available to the reader or listener as a member of the public. Mixed expression of opinion occurs when an opinion or comment is made which is based upon facts regarding the plaintiff or his conduct that have not been stated in the publication or assumed to exist by the parties  to the communication.” “[A] speaker cannot invoke a ‘pure opinion’ defense, [however,] if the facts underlying the opinion are false or inaccurately presented.” …

Zimmerman alleges that the American public is very knowledgeable of the facts surrounding the 2012 incident in which Trayvon Martin died. This appears to support a finding that Buttigieg and Warren offered their opinions based on facts available to members of the public.

However, it is not clear at this stage of the litigation that the facts underlying the conclusions as to white supremacy, racism, prejudice, and fear are available to the public, such that they transform the entirety of the statements into ones of mixed expression. Because the Court must construe the statements in their totality, including the circumstances surrounding the publication, and must examine all the words used in the publication, this issue is best determined on a motion for summary judgment….

Zimmerman has until March 9 to file an amended complaint.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3kfBZnr
via IFTTT

Certain progressives are becoming increasingly cavalier about the economic consequences of raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour.

“They shouldn’t be doing it by paying low wages. We don’t want low-wage businesses,” Rep. Ro Khanna (D–Calif.) said on CNN earlier this week when asked about whether hard-pressed small businesses would be able to absorb the mandated pay hike. “I think $15 is very reasonable in this country.”

Khanna’s seemingly blasé acknowledgment that the Democrats’ minimum wage proposal would force some small businesses to shut down sparked immediate criticism from conservatives. Khanna later clarified his remarks on Twitter by saying he thought a $15 an hour federal minimum wage would be good for both workers and employers.

We can pay workers a living wage AND have small businesses thrive, including in rural. Putting more money in people’s pockets means they spend more in local communities. You can be pro worker and pro small business. That’s what most small business owners I meet believe.

— Ro Khanna (@RoKhanna) February 22, 2021

Nevertheless, other left-wing commenters approvingly tweeted out Khanna’s original remarks, saying that forcing businesses who can’t afford the new higher minimum wage to close would be a good thing.

Ro Khanna effectively makes the case that if a business is predicated on paying workers starvation wages, then that business should not be considered a viable enterprise. https://t.co/3f5z8T6KbJ

— David Sirota (@davidsirota) February 22, 2021

A while back I was on radio talking about why all workers deserve paid vacation. The host asked about small businesses that couldn’t afford to pay for it. I replied, “if you can’t afford vacation pay, you don’t have a viable business model.” The host was stunned into silence. https://t.co/OXsVxytrKO

— Helaine Olen (@helaineolen) February 22, 2021

 

That’s a callous attitude to take towards small business owners in light of the difficulties they’re already facing amid a pandemic and related public health restrictions. Given how many mom-and-pop operations would struggle to cope with a $15 federal minimum wage, these commentators are writing off a huge number of existing businesses as essentially worthless.

Nationally, about a third of small businesses have closed since the start of the pandemic. Small business revenue is down by about the same amount.

The proposed $15 an hour minimum wage, which the proposed Raise the Wage Act would phase in by 2025, is higher than the current median wage in Mississippi, notes Scott Lincicome of the Cato Institute. The figure is only a little less than the median wage in states like Arkansas, West Virginia, and Louisiana.

Making that median wage the new national floor would prove fatal for a huge number of employers in those lower-wage, lower-cost states.

And even if one isn’t inclined to shed a tear for mom-and-pop businesses, it’s not like the current lower-wage employees of those businesses would be made better off either. They’d stand to make $0 an hour if their employer shuts down. And even if the business does survive, those employees still risk cuts to their hours or worsening working conditions.

That’s what’s playing out in Fresno, California, where the rollout of that state’s $15 an hour minimum wage law was the subject of a recent investigation by The New York Times.

As that story notes, Fresno, as a lower-wage, lower-cost area of a higher-wage, high-cost state, makes for a good case study on how the phase-in of a $15 an hour federal minimum wage might work.

In January, California hiked its minimum wage to $14 an hour. Businesses in Fresno, where the median wage is $17 an hour, have responded by either raising prices, cutting staff, or both, the Times found.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates a $15 an hour national minimum wage would cost 1.4 million people their jobs.

A similar story is playing out in West Coast cities that have passed hazard pay ordinances that require grocers to pay their employees an additional $4 or $5 an hour during the pandemic.

Some grocery store chains have responded by closing down poor-performing stores. Independent operators say they’re being forced to operate in the red, and might not survive for much longer. According to a city staff analysis, a proposed $5 an hour hazard pay proposal in Los Angeles would risk price hikes, job losses, store closures, and the creation of “food deserts.”

Grocery stores are particularly sensitive to sudden increases in their labor costs given the typically tight margins those businesses operate on. That’s true even during the pandemic when some grocery chains have reaped record profits.

Small businesses experiencing declining revenue during the pandemic would obviously be harder hit by sudden increases in their labor costs.

Even if one thinks it’s fine for businesses that pay low wages to go extinct, their shuttering also means fewer job options for low-wage workers. There’s no social justice in that.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3pNKbMH
via IFTTT

At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, many states waived existing restrictions on telehealth so doctors and patients could continue to consult without having face-to-face visits.

Now, with the end of the pandemic hopefully within sight, some state and federal lawmakers are looking to keep those arbitrary and nonsensical restrictions from coming back into force.

Sens. Brian Schatz (D–Hawaii) and Tim Scott (R–S.C.) on Tuesday introduced a bill to abolish some particularly silly Medicare restrictions on telehealth that effectively prevent many older Americans from taking advantage of the option to consult with a doctor from the comfort of home. Under Medicare’s existing “geographic and originating site” rules, patients can only use telehealth services if they live in an area defined as having a shortage of health professionals by the Department of Health and Human Services. Even sillier, the rule requires that Medicare patients can only use telehealth services from an existing medical clinic or doctor’s office—which means you have to leave home and drive to a doctor’s office in order to use a webcam to chat with a doctor in a different office.

As a result, most of America’s 61 million Medicare recipients—many of whom are elderly and may have difficulty leaving home—are completely cut-off from one of the best ways that modern technology helps deliver vital services. It’s not the 1980s anymore, but Medicare forces senior citizens to get medical treatment as if it were.

Those restrictions were lifted on a temporary basis due to COVID-19, but Schatz and Scott are right to want them gone for good. In announcing their bill, the Telehealth Modernization Act, the two senators noted that about 40 percent of all Medicare visits between April and July of last year took place remotely.

“Telehealth has been a godsend for millions of Americans receiving health care services during the pandemic, while ensuring the spread of the virus stays at a minimum,” Scott said in a statement. “Updating our laws to solve today’s challenges through commonsense and practical approaches will ensure more access to health care and a safer aging population.”

While those changes to Medicare’s rules would be a big development at the federal level, there are also many state-level obstacles to a more robust telehealth system that should be left on the sidelines when the pandemic ends. One of the biggest issues is the lines between the states—and, more specifically, the licensing regulations that often prohibit doctors in one state from seeing virtual patients who live somewhere else.

“A person can travel from, say, Phoenix, Arizona, to Los Angeles, California, to consult and receive care from a renowned expert in a unique medical condition, but cannot do telehealth follow up appointments with that practitioner unless that practitioner gets a license in Arizona,” writes Jeffrey Singer, an Arizona-based physician and senior fellow at the Cato Institute. (Disclosure: Singer is a financial supporter of Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes this website.) “In other words, the patient can travel to the doctor, but the doctor cannot travel to the patient.”

Changing Medicare’s rules so an out-of-state doctor can get paid for telehealth services won’t actually open up the market unless states change their licensing rules to allow those virtual visits to take place.

Thankfully, some states are taking the initiative to remove such barriers. Lawmakers in Arizona have introduced the most ambitious proposal, says Courtney Joslin, a resident fellow at the R Street Institute, a free market think tank. The bill would require insurers to cover telehealth visits at the same rates as in-person visits and would permit Arizonans to get telehealth services from doctors in other states.

The Arizona bill aims to “create a permanent, stable, and innovative telehealth market for Arizonans” and is a model for other states to follow, says Joslin. “The demand for telehealth services erupted almost overnight once state lockdowns set in last year, and has become immensely popular. Why should legislators move slowly in allowing it to stick around?”

Indeed, it’s a shame that it took a global pandemic to spur lawmakers to make some of these common-sense changes at the state and federal levels. Telehealth is no longer a fringe service that should be seen as a last-ditch effort to bring medical access to areas with shortages—it’s a mainstream aspect of a modern health care system that should stick around even after COVID-19 is gone.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3kiSu23
via IFTTT