Global Crisis: The Convergence Of Marx, Kafka, Orwell, & Huxley

Global Crisis: The Convergence Of Marx, Kafka, Orwell, & Huxley

Tyler Durden

Mon, 06/08/2020 – 16:45

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

The global crisis is not merely economic; it is the result of profound financial, sociological and political trends described by Marx, Kafka, Orwell and Huxley.

The unfolding global crisis is best understood as the convergence of the dynamics described by Marx, Kafka, Orwell and Huxley. Let’s start with Franz Kafka, the writer (1883-1924) who most eloquently captured the systemic injustices of all-powerful bureaucratic institutions–the alienation experienced by the hapless citizen enmeshed in the bureaucratic web, petty officialdom’s mindless persecutions of the innocent, and the intrinsic absurdity of the centralized State best expressed in this phrase: “We expect errors, not justice.”

If this isn’t the most insightful summary of the current moment in history, then what is? A lawyer by training and practice, Kafka understood that the the more powerful and entrenched the institution and its bureaucracy, the greater the collateral damage rained on the innocent, and the more extreme the perversion of justice.

We are living in a Kafkaesque nightmare where suspicion alone justifies the government stealing from its citizens, and an unrelated crime (possessing drug paraphernalia) is used to justify state theft.

As in a Kafkaesque nightmare, the state is above the law when it needs an excuse to steal your car or cash. There is no crime, no arrest, no due process–just the state threatening that you should shut up and be happy they don’t take everything you own.

All these forms of civil forfeiture are well documented. While some would claim the worst abuses have been rectified, that is far from evident. What is evident is how long these kinds of legalized looting have been going on.

Taken: Under civil forfeiture, Americans who haven’t been charged with wrongdoing can be stripped of their cash, cars, and even homes. Is that all we’re losing? (2013)

Stop and Seize (six parts) (2013)

When the state steals our cash or car on mere suspicion, you have no recourse other than horrendously costly and time-consuming legal actions. So you no longer have enough money to prove your innocence now that we’ve declared your car and cash guilty?

Tough luck, bucko–be glad you live in a fake democracy with a fake rule of law, a fake judiciary, and a government with the officially sanctioned right to steal your money and possessions without any due process or court proceedings–legalized looting.

They don’t have to torture a confession out of you, like the NKVD/KGB did in the former Soviet Union, because your cash and car are already guilty.

This is where Orwell enters the convergence, for the State masks its stripmining and power grab with deliciously Orwellian misdirections such as “the People’s Party,” “democratic socialism,” and so on.

Orwell understood the State’s ontological imperative is expansion, to the point where it controls every level of community, markets and society. Once the State escapes the control of the citizenry, it is free to exploit them in a parasitic predation that is the mirror-image of Monopoly capital. For what is the State but a monopoly of force, coercion, data manipulation and the regulation of private monopolies?

What is the EU bureaucracy in Brussels but the perfection of a stateless State?

As Kafka divined, centralized bureaucracy has the capacity for both Orwellian obfuscation (anyone read those 1,300-page Congressional bills other than those gaming the system for their private benefit?) and systemic avarice and injustice.

The convergence boils down to this: it would be impossible to loot this much wealth if the State didn’t exist to enforce the “rules” of parasitic predation.

Aldous Huxley foresaw a Central State that persuaded its people to “love their servitude” via propaganda, drugs, entertainment and information-overload. In his view, the energy required to force compliance exceeded the “cost” of persuasion, and thus the Powers That Be would opt for the power of suggestion.

He outlined this in a letter to George Orwell:

“My own belief is that the ruling oligarchy will find less arduous and wasteful ways of governing and of satisfying its lust for power, and these ways will resemble those which I described in Brave New World.

Within the next generation I believe that the world’s rulers will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience.”

As prescient as he was, Huxley could not have foreseen the power of mobile telephony, gaming and social media hypnosis/addiction as a conditioning mechanism for passivity and self-absorption. We are only beginning to understand the immense addictive/conditioning powers of 24/7 mobile telephony / social media.

What would we say about a drug that caused people to forego sex to check their Facebook page? What would we say about a drug that caused young men to stay glued to a computer for 40+ hours straight, an obsession so acute that some actually die? We would declare that drug to be far too powerful and dangerous to be widely available, yet mobile telephony, gaming and social media is now ubiquitous.

Servitude comes in many gradations and forms. Relying on the Federal Reserve to constantly prop up our pension and mutual funds lest reality cause them to collapse is a form of servitude; we end up worshiping the Fed as our omnipotent financial saviors.

That the Fed is unelected and impervious to democracy or the will of the people is forgotten; all that matters is that we love our servitude to it.

The Central State has the power via helicopter drops of cash to individuals and corporate bailouts to buy complicity. Since the human mind rebels against hypocrisy and insincerity–we can all spot a phony–we subconsciously persuade ourselves of the rightness and inevitability of servitude and self-absorption.

And that is how we come to love our servitude; we persuade ourselves to believe it’s acceptable and normal rather than deranged and destructive.

I have covered these topics in depth in my books Resistance, Revolution, Liberation: A Model for Positive Change and Survival+: Structuring Prosperity for Yourself and the Nation.

Last but not least, we come to Marx. As Marx explained, the dynamics of state-monopoly-capitalism lead to the complete dominance of capital over labor in both financial and political “markets,” as wealth buys political influence which then protects and enforces capital’s dominance.

Marx also saw that finance-capital would inevitably incentivize over-capacity, stripping industrial capital of pricing power and profits. Once there’s more goods and services than labor can afford to buy with earnings, financialization arises to provide credit to labor to buy capital’s surplus production and engineer financial gains with leveraged speculation and asset bubbles.

But since labor’s earnings are stagnant or declining, there’s an end-game to financialization. Capital can no longer generate any gain at all except by central banks agreeing to buy capital’s absurdly over-valued assets. Though the players tell themselves this arrangement is temporary, the dynamics Marx described are fundamental and inexorable: the insanity of central banks creating currency out of thin air to buy insanely over-priced assets is the final crisis of late-stage capitalism because there is no other escape from collapse.

Having stripped labor of earnings and political power and extracted every last scrap of profit from over-capacity (i.e. globalization) and financialization, capital is now completely dependent on money-spewing central banks buying their phantom capital with newly printed currency, a dynamic that will eventually trigger a collapse in the purchasing power of the central banks’ phantom capital (i.e. fiat currencies).

When there is no incentive to invest in real-world productive assets and every incentive to skim profits by front-running the Federal Reserve, capitalism is dead. Paraphrasing Wallerstein, “Capitalism is no longer attractive to capitalists.”

We can see this for ourselves in the real world: if “renewable energy” was as profitable as some maintain, private capital would have rushed in to fund every project to maximize their gains from this new source of immense profits. But as Art Berman explained in Why the Renewable Rocket Has Failed To Launch, this hasn’t been the case. Rather, “green energy” remains dependent on government subsidies in one form or another. If hydropower is removed from “renewables,” all other renewables (solar, wind, etc.) provide only 4% of total global energy consumption.

Japan’s stagnation exemplifies Marx’s analysis: Japan’s central bank has created trillions of yen out of thin air for 30 years and used this phantom capital to buy the over-valued assets of Japan’s politically dominant state-capitalist class, a policy that has led to secular stagnation and social decline. If it weren’t for China’s one-off expansion, Japan’s economy would have slipped into phantom capital oblivion decades ago.

Kafka, Orwell, Huxley and Marx called it, and we’re living in the last-gasp stage of the cruel and unsustainable system they described. So sorry, but investing your phantom capital in FANG stocks, Tik-Tok and virtual-reality games will not save phantom capital from well-deserved oblivion.

*  *  *

My recent books:

Will You Be Richer or Poorer?: Profit, Power, and AI in a Traumatized World ($13)
(Kindle $6.95, print $11.95) Read the first section for free (PDF).

Pathfinding our Destiny: Preventing the Final Fall of Our Democratic Republic ($6.95 (Kindle), $12 (print), $13.08 ( audiobook): Read the first section for free (PDF).

The Adventures of the Consulting Philosopher: The Disappearance of Drake $1.29 (Kindle), $8.95 (print); read the first chapters for free (PDF)

Money and Work Unchained $6.95 (Kindle), $15 (print) Read the first section for free (PDF).

*  *  *

If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/30t4Ooi Tyler Durden

Former NYC Police Commissioner Warns 600 Cops On Verge Of Quitting As Mayor Vows To Cut Funding

Former NYC Police Commissioner Warns 600 Cops On Verge Of Quitting As Mayor Vows To Cut Funding

Tyler Durden

Mon, 06/08/2020 – 16:35

A former New York Police Commissioner told Fox News on Monday that he heard up to 600 NYPD cops are on the verge of either retiring or quitting following the events of the last 2 weeks, during which NYC saw some of the most violent demonstrations in the country. The protests saw violence perpetrated against police by violent instigators and looters who operated in organized crews. However, a flurry of optically terrible videos of police attacking peaceful or nonviolent protesters have turned Democratic politicians in the city, including the mayor, decidedly against the NYPD.

New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik appeared on Fox News for the second time in a week (following an appearance on Tucker Tuesday evening that was criticized by the Washington Post) over the weekend to share the troubling news.

After years of clashing with 1 Police Plaza, Mayor de Blasio announced on Sunday that he would implement recommendations from a ‘racial inclusion’ committee led by his wife, which recommended shifting funding from the NYPD to youth and social services organizations.

The mayor’s decision to side with demonstrators who attacked police in a few isolated instances (like when a group of protesters surrounding an NYPD police van) largely soured the rank and file and union leaders, who have slammed de Blasio as incompetent, and have urged him to step down.

Last week, NY Comptroller (and, according to some, mayor-in-waiting) Scott Stringer recommended shaving $1.1 billion from the NYPD budget over four years. Currently, the city spends ~$6 billion a year on maintaining the country’s largest police force, with about ~45k sworn officers and thousands more civilian employees.

This has shattered what little remained of police morale over the past 2 weeks, as the media and the public have largely ignored the hundreds of cops who have been injured and dozens who have been hospitalized – with several even killed. One of the most gruesome incidents involved a cop being hit by a car in Brooklyn.

“You have some in the hospital. But there were over 300, 300 injuries. And the thing that scares me, judge, I’m hearing close to 600 cops have either put in their papers, or they’re talking to the department about resigning or retiring, like this is insane,” he said.

Kerik served as Giuliani’s police commissioner during 9/11 and its aftermath, though his reputation was later tarnished by corruption charges that led to a jail term.

Giuliani, who participated in the interview with Kerik, relished the opportunity to tear into de Blasio.

“This action did not have to happen if we had a vaguely competent mayor. This should have been stopped five days ago. I mean, couldn’t they have stopped some of that? We have watched now over and over again people looting, throwing Molotov cocktails, burning cars, and now putting our police in prison, in hospitals, and virtually no major arrests are made,” Giuliani said. “The mayor should step down. He’s incompetent.”

Watch a clip from the interview here.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2AQcMx8 Tyler Durden

The Struggle Sessions Are Real

It’s early yet, but last week may go down as the week that the journalism industry lost its damn fool mind. You’ve heard (too much!) about the exhaustive WTFery at The New York Times, but here are some other cases making the news:

* Philadelphia Inquirer Editor Stan Wischnowski resigned Saturday after a staff revolt stemming from an opinion piece headlined “Buildings Matter, Too.”

* Variety Editor-in-Chief Claudia Eller was placed on administrative leave after she (a) wrote a self-critical column about not doing enough to diversify her newsroom, then (b) called one of her subsequent you’re-still-not-doing-enough critics “bitter.”

* Several news organizations, after tweeting or sending out messages of support for the protests and/or Black Lives Matter, were met with “name and shame” campaigns for not doing enough.

So provides the backdrop for this week’s Reason Roundtable, featuring Nick Gillespie, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Peter Suderman, and Matt Welch. The gang talks about the original (bad) idea behind Tom Cotton’s New York Times op-ed, the federal government’s heavy-handed use of force against D.C. protests, blatant epidemiological hypocrisy, and more media skedaddling than you can shake whipping stick at.

Audio production by Ian Keyser and Regan Taylor.

Music: “Incoming Transition” by The Whole Other.

Relevant links from the show:

James Bennet’s Resignation Proves the Woke Scolds Are Taking Over The New York Times,” by Robby Soave

New York Times Journalists Scared To Have an Op-Ed Page,” by Matt Welch

Tom Cotton Wants to Double Down on the Authoritarianism That Sparked Riots,” by J.D. Tuccille

Defense Secretary Mark Esper Contradicts Trump on Using Military To Quell Protests,” by Christian Britschgi

It Wasn’t Tear Gas. It Was a Gaseous Substance That Causes Tears,” by Elizabeth Nolan Brown

California County Will Allow Outdoor Social Gatherings of 12 People—and Outdoor Protests of 100 People,” by Christian Britschgi

Public Health Experts Have Undermined Their Own Case for the COVID-19 Lockdowns,” by Robby Soave

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3dJVW1H
via IFTTT

Democrats Unveil Policing Reform Bill

Congressional Democrats released wide-ranging police reform legislation today in response to the national outrage over last month’s killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer.  

The Justice in Policing Act would end qualified immunity, establish a national registry for police misconduct, ban police chokeholds and no-knock raids in some circumstances, and limit the transfer of military equipment to state and local police departments. It would also require federal law enforcement officers to wear body cameras and to have dashboard cameras installed in their vehicles.

“The martyrdom of George Floyd gave the American experience a moment of national anguish as we grieve for the black Americans killed by police brutality today,” House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) said at a Capitol Hill news conference today. “This moment of national anguish is being transformed into a movement of national action as Americans from across the country peacefully protest to demand an end to injustice.”

The protests that erupted after Floyd’s death have given sudden momentum to reforms that criminal justice activists have been trying to advance for years, such as opening up police disciplinary records and getting police out of schools.

Several of the measures in the bill, like curtailing no-knock police raids and qualified immunity—a legal doctrine that shields cops from liability in civil rights lawsuits—have been on libertarians’ wish lists for a long time. But there are questions about just how much some of the bill’s provisions could actually impact day-to-day policing. New York City, for example, banned police chokeholds, but that didn’t stop officers from violating the policy or from largely escaping discipline when they did it.

And Congress has limited power to curtail police unions, one of the biggest impediments to bringing more transparency and accountability to police departments, because they are governed on the state and local levels by “law enforcement officers bills of rights” and collective bargaining agreements.

Civil liberties groups applauded some portions of the bill but criticized provisions that would increase federal funding for state and local law enforcement. The bill would authorize a $100 million grant program for state attorney generals to conduct investigations into systemic civil rights violations at police departments. Another provision authorizes a $750 million grant program for states to investigate and prosecute excessive force incidents.

Kanya Bennett, senior legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), said in a press release that, while the bill “takes significant steps to protect people and ensure accountability against police violence,” it “also provides hundreds of millions more to law enforcement, and for the ACLU, that’s a nonstarter.” 

“While many of the reforms in this bill are laudable and vital, more must be done to change the role of police in our society fundamentally,” Bennet continued. “There can be no more Band-Aid or temporary fixes when it comes to policing, which is why we are calling for divestment from law enforcement agencies and reinvestment into the Black and Brown communities that have been harmed by over policing and mass incarceration. The role of police has to be smaller, more circumscribed, and less funded with taxpayer dollars.”

Several civil rights groups, including the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the NAACP, put out statements saying that the bill isn’t perfect but they still support it. Lisa Graybill, deputy legal director for criminal justice reform at SPLC Action, said the Justice in Policing Act “is an overdue step in the right direction.”

The bill will face opposition from the right as well. White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said at a press conference today that ending qualified immunity was a “nonstarter” for the Trump administration.

“We should vote on each proposal separately,” Rep. Justin Amash (L–Mich.), who introduced his own bill to end qualified immunity, tweeted. “Massive bills with dozens of topics aren’t serious efforts to change law. They’re messaging bills with no expectation of getting signed. They cram in so much that they’re never written well or reviewed carefully.”

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

Federalist Society Online Conference on COVID-19 & the Law

The conference promises to be excellent, with a wide range of views (including appearances by such prominent liberals as Ian Ayres, Dan Farber, Nadine Strossen, and Cass Sunstein, among others); I’m on the last panel, and our own Jonathan Adler is on the second panel.

The Federalist Society announces a major conference on COVID-19 & the Law to take place virtually on June 11-12. The conference will consist of six panels covering a range of legal issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Each panel will be available to watch as a webinar and as a live stream. Register now to take part in the webinars!

THURSDAY, JUNE 11

Government vs. Private Decisionmaking
10:00 AM EST

  • Prof. Ian Ayres, William K. Townsend Professor of Law, Yale Law School
  • Prof. David Hyman, Scott K. Ginsburg Professor of Health Law & Policy, Georgetown University
  • Prof. Jason Johnston, Henry L. and Grace Doherty Charitable Foundation Professor of Law; Armistead M. Dobie Professor of Law; and Director, John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics, University of Virginia School of Law
  • Prof. Anup Malani, Lee and Brena Freeman Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School
  • Moderator: Eugene Meyer, President and CEO, The Federalist Society

Address
11:30 AM EST

  • Hon. Ajit Pai, Chairman, U.S. Federal Communications Commission

Federalism and COVID-19
1:30 PM EST

  • Prof. Jonathan Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law, Director of the Center for Business Law & Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
  • Prof. Daniel Farber, Sho Sato Professor of Law; Faculty Director, Center for Law, Energy, & the Environment, University of California, Berkeley
  • Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center
  • Prof. Roderick M. Hills, William T. Comfort, III Professor of Law, New York University School of Law
  • Moderator: Kay James, President, The Heritage Foundation

Federal Executive Power and COVID-19
3:30 PM EST

  • Hon. C. Boyden Gray, Founding Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates
  • Prof. Daniel B. Rodriguez, Harold Washington Professor of Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law
  • Prof. Lisa Grow Sun, Professor of Law, BYU J. Reuben Clark Law School
  • Moderator: Prof. Gary Lawson, Philip S. Beck Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law

FRIDAY, JUNE 12

COVID-19 and the 2020 Elections
10:00 AM EST

  • Dr. Rachel Kleinfeld, Senior Fellow, Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
  • Prof. Michael T. Morley, Assistant Professor, Florida State University College of Law
  • Prof. Richard H. Pildes, Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law, New York University School of Law
  • Hon. Bradley A. Smith, Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law, Capital University Law School
  • Moderator: Hon. R. Patrick DeWine, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of Ohio

Regulation or “Don’t Let a Good Crisis Go to Waste”
1:30 PM EST

  • Prof. Sally Katzen, Professor of Practice and Distinguished Scholar in Residence; Co-Director of the Legislative and Regulatory Process Clinic, New York University School of Law
  • Dr. Roger D. Klein, Faculty Fellow, Center for Law, Science & Innovation, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Arizona State University
  • Prof. Erika Lietzan, Associate Professor of Law, Center for Intellectual Property and Entrepreneurship, University of Missouri School of Law
  • Prof. Paul G. Mahoney, David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
  • Prof. Cass Sunstein, Robert Walmsley University Professor, Harvard Law School
  • Moderator: Prof. Susan E. Dudley, Director, GW Regulatory Studies Center & Distinguished Professor of Practice, Trachtenberg School of Public Policy & Public Administration, The George Washington University

Civil Liberties and COVID-19
3:45 PM EST

  • Prof. Julia Mahoney, John S. Battle Professor of Law; Class of 1963 Research Professor in Honor of Graham C. Lilly and Peter W. Low, University of Virginia School of Law
  • Prof. Nadine Strossen, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law, Emerita, New York Law School; Former President, American Civil Liberties Union, 1991-2008
  • Prof. Mila Versteeg, Martha Lubin Karsh and Bruce A. Karsh Bicentennial Professor of Law; Director, Human Rights Program; Senior Fellow, Miller Center, University of Virginia School of Law
  • Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law
  • Moderator: Hon. Christopher C. DeMuth, Distinguished Fellow, Hudson Institute

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/30lMEEZ
via IFTTT

Professionalizing Police Hasn’t Worked. Try Privatizing Instead.

The Minneapolis City Council’s plan to dismantle the city’s police department following the death of George Floyd in police custody has some people concerned about how order will be maintained afterward.

It’s a reasonable concern. All too often in public policy, overreaction to a scandal creates its own problems. The flip side of that, though, is tolerating abuse, mismanagement, or incompetence. That’s too common in government.

Police abuse has qualities that make it especially troubling. There’s an asymmetry between an armed police officer and a mostly unarmed civilian population. Since many of us operate with the starting assumption that the police are there to protect us, it’s a particular betrayal when they threaten us instead. And police action may seem arbitrary rather than rules-based.

This abstract truth was made concrete to me last year on a weekend morning when I was driving my 20-year-old, beat-up car through one of Boston’s fanciest suburbs. I turned a corner and suddenly a man in plainclothes was in front of the car waving me toward the curb. He accused me of speeding, flashed a badge, and identified himself as police, and asked me where I was going. At some point in the interaction, I asked if he had a radar gun. He said, “never ask a police officer if he has a radar.” He said I seemed to be reacting very emotionally. I was shaken by the whole thing but never filed a complaint. The whole thing happened in a town where I’m not a resident.

When any government institution loses public confidence, it’s worth asking, what are the accountability mechanisms? In colonial Boston, individuals were elected to one-year terms as constables. Having to face the voters frequently for re-election is one way of creating accountability.

 Like so many other government functions in the progressive era, though, policing was professionalized and depoliticized. Some of this was a sincere effort to reduce corruption and move from patronage to civil service; some of it was caught up in the anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant sentiment of other “reform” and anti-machine politics of the day. A key figure in the professionalizing trend was August Vollmer, who began in 1909 as chief of the Berkeley, California, police department.

During various police scandals over the years, there has been discussion of moving from the model of an appointed police chief or police commissioner to one directly elected by the public, or one accountable to a school-committee-style police commission of members elected by the public. Even frequent direct elections, though, are no guarantee of managerial quality or of public job-approval, to judge by polls of what people think of Congress.

A more radical reform might be privatizing the police. Perhaps the profit motive will create incentives to use technology and scale to innovate in ways that would reduce crime and also reduce abuse. The same way that, say, Amazon and Walmart compete to serve retail customers most efficiently, or ATT and Verizon compete to offer the best cellphone service, police contractors—perhaps even minority-owned or managed-ones—might compete to provide cities with the least crime, the least abuse and misconduct, and the best resident ratings for satisfaction with police services. A risk of that approach is that the private police companies could wind up like defense contractors at their worst—hiring former officials or winning fat contracts with the help of campaign contributions or lobbying expenditures rather than on the basis of quality performance. But even the threat of privatization might help improve accountability for existing government police forces.

It’s also worth exploring whether there are steps short of full privatization that might have similar benefits in terms of competition and choice. Perhaps police reform could borrow a page from education reform and create “charter precincts,” where neighborhoods opt-out of their city’s central police bureaucracy and are allowed flexibility to experiment with different approaches. Successful charter precincts might grow to become charter-management organizations the same way that KIPP or Success Academy or Uncommon Schools charter schools operate multiple sites.

As a cause of death, killings by police, at about 1,000 a year in the U.S., are small in comparison to the numbers dead because of medical errors or “deaths of despair” from alcoholism, drug overdoses, or suicide. There may even be some overlap in cases of “suicide by cop.” No amount of protesting, violent or peaceful, is likely to reduce that toll in the absence of structural reforms that increase accountability, competition, choice, and incentives. The Minneapolis City Council’s action, though it appears drastic, could be a gesture in the right direction.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3f1z1z2
via IFTTT

Federalist Society Online Conference on COVID-19 & the Law

The conference promises to be excellent, with a wide range of views (including appearances by such prominent liberals as Ian Ayres, Dan Farber, Nadine Strossen, and Cass Sunstein, among others); I’m on the last panel, and our own Jonathan Adler is on the second panel.

The Federalist Society announces a major conference on COVID-19 & the Law to take place virtually on June 11-12. The conference will consist of six panels covering a range of legal issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Each panel will be available to watch as a webinar and as a live stream. Register now to take part in the webinars!

THURSDAY, JUNE 11

Government vs. Private Decisionmaking
10:00 AM EST

  • Prof. Ian Ayres, William K. Townsend Professor of Law, Yale Law School
  • Prof. David Hyman, Scott K. Ginsburg Professor of Health Law & Policy, Georgetown University
  • Prof. Jason Johnston, Henry L. and Grace Doherty Charitable Foundation Professor of Law; Armistead M. Dobie Professor of Law; and Director, John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics, University of Virginia School of Law
  • Prof. Anup Malani, Lee and Brena Freeman Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School
  • Moderator: Eugene Meyer, President and CEO, The Federalist Society

Address
11:30 AM EST

  • Hon. Ajit Pai, Chairman, U.S. Federal Communications Commission

Federalism and COVID-19
1:30 PM EST

  • Prof. Jonathan Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law, Director of the Center for Business Law & Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
  • Prof. Daniel Farber, Sho Sato Professor of Law; Faculty Director, Center for Law, Energy, & the Environment, University of California, Berkeley
  • Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center
  • Prof. Roderick M. Hills, William T. Comfort, III Professor of Law, New York University School of Law
  • Moderator: Kay James, President, The Heritage Foundation

Federal Executive Power and COVID-19
3:30 PM EST

  • Hon. C. Boyden Gray, Founding Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates
  • Prof. Daniel B. Rodriguez, Harold Washington Professor of Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law
  • Prof. Lisa Grow Sun, Professor of Law, BYU J. Reuben Clark Law School
  • Moderator: Prof. Gary Lawson, Philip S. Beck Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law

FRIDAY, JUNE 12

COVID-19 and the 2020 Elections
10:00 AM EST

  • Dr. Rachel Kleinfeld, Senior Fellow, Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
  • Prof. Michael T. Morley, Assistant Professor, Florida State University College of Law
  • Prof. Richard H. Pildes, Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law, New York University School of Law
  • Hon. Bradley A. Smith, Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law, Capital University Law School
  • Moderator: Hon. R. Patrick DeWine, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of Ohio

Regulation or “Don’t Let a Good Crisis Go to Waste”
1:30 PM EST

  • Prof. Sally Katzen, Professor of Practice and Distinguished Scholar in Residence; Co-Director of the Legislative and Regulatory Process Clinic, New York University School of Law
  • Dr. Roger D. Klein, Faculty Fellow, Center for Law, Science & Innovation, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Arizona State University
  • Prof. Erika Lietzan, Associate Professor of Law, Center for Intellectual Property and Entrepreneurship, University of Missouri School of Law
  • Prof. Paul G. Mahoney, David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
  • Prof. Cass Sunstein, Robert Walmsley University Professor, Harvard Law School
  • Moderator: Prof. Susan E. Dudley, Director, GW Regulatory Studies Center & Distinguished Professor of Practice, Trachtenberg School of Public Policy & Public Administration, The George Washington University

Civil Liberties and COVID-19
3:45 PM EST

  • Prof. Julia Mahoney, John S. Battle Professor of Law; Class of 1963 Research Professor in Honor of Graham C. Lilly and Peter W. Low, University of Virginia School of Law
  • Prof. Nadine Strossen, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law, Emerita, New York Law School; Former President, American Civil Liberties Union, 1991-2008
  • Prof. Mila Versteeg, Martha Lubin Karsh and Bruce A. Karsh Bicentennial Professor of Law; Director, Human Rights Program; Senior Fellow, Miller Center, University of Virginia School of Law
  • Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law
  • Moderator: Hon. Christopher C. DeMuth, Distinguished Fellow, Hudson Institute

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/30lMEEZ
via IFTTT

Professionalizing Police Hasn’t Worked. Try Privatizing Instead.

The Minneapolis City Council’s plan to dismantle the city’s police department following the death of George Floyd in police custody has some people concerned about how order will be maintained afterward.

It’s a reasonable concern. All too often in public policy, overreaction to a scandal creates its own problems. The flip side of that, though, is tolerating abuse, mismanagement, or incompetence. That’s too common in government.

Police abuse has qualities that make it especially troubling. There’s an asymmetry between an armed police officer and a mostly unarmed civilian population. Since many of us operate with the starting assumption that the police are there to protect us, it’s a particular betrayal when they threaten us instead. And police action may seem arbitrary rather than rules-based.

This abstract truth was made concrete to me last year on a weekend morning when I was driving my 20-year-old, beat-up car through one of Boston’s fanciest suburbs. I turned a corner and suddenly a man in plainclothes was in front of the car waving me toward the curb. He accused me of speeding, flashed a badge, and identified himself as police, and asked me where I was going. At some point in the interaction, I asked if he had a radar gun. He said, “never ask a police officer if he has a radar.” He said I seemed to be reacting very emotionally. I was shaken by the whole thing but never filed a complaint. The whole thing happened in a town where I’m not a resident.

When any government institution loses public confidence, it’s worth asking, what are the accountability mechanisms? In colonial Boston, individuals were elected to one-year terms as constables. Having to face the voters frequently for re-election is one way of creating accountability.

 Like so many other government functions in the progressive era, though, policing was professionalized and depoliticized. Some of this was a sincere effort to reduce corruption and move from patronage to civil service; some of it was caught up in the anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant sentiment of other “reform” and anti-machine politics of the day. A key figure in the professionalizing trend was August Vollmer, who began in 1909 as chief of the Berkeley, California, police department.

During various police scandals over the years, there has been discussion of moving from the model of an appointed police chief or police commissioner to one directly elected by the public, or one accountable to a school-committee-style police commission of members elected by the public. Even frequent direct elections, though, are no guarantee of managerial quality or of public job-approval, to judge by polls of what people think of Congress.

A more radical reform might be privatizing the police. Perhaps the profit motive will create incentives to use technology and scale to innovate in ways that would reduce crime and also reduce abuse. The same way that, say, Amazon and Walmart compete to serve retail customers most efficiently, or ATT and Verizon compete to offer the best cellphone service, police contractors—perhaps even minority-owned or managed-ones—might compete to provide cities with the least crime, the least abuse and misconduct, and the best resident ratings for satisfaction with police services. A risk of that approach is that the private police companies could wind up like defense contractors at their worst—hiring former officials or winning fat contracts with the help of campaign contributions or lobbying expenditures rather than on the basis of quality performance. But even the threat of privatization might help improve accountability for existing government police forces.

It’s also worth exploring whether there are steps short of full privatization that might have similar benefits in terms of competition and choice. Perhaps police reform could borrow a page from education reform and create “charter precincts,” where neighborhoods opt-out of their city’s central police bureaucracy and are allowed flexibility to experiment with different approaches. Successful charter precincts might grow to become charter-management organizations the same way that KIPP or Success Academy or Uncommon Schools charter schools operate multiple sites.

As a cause of death, killings by police, at about 1,000 a year in the U.S., are small in comparison to the numbers dead because of medical errors or “deaths of despair” from alcoholism, drug overdoses, or suicide. There may even be some overlap in cases of “suicide by cop.” No amount of protesting, violent or peaceful, is likely to reduce that toll in the absence of structural reforms that increase accountability, competition, choice, and incentives. The Minneapolis City Council’s action, though it appears drastic, could be a gesture in the right direction.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3f1z1z2
via IFTTT

Protesters Want to Defund the Police. Joe Biden Wants to Hire More of Them.

“Defund the police” has become one of the most important mantras for the protesters demanding justice in the wake of George Floyd’s death. Protesters in Minneapolis, for instance, ostracized Mayor Jacob Frey after he admitted that he did not support the full abolition of the police. “Go home, Jacob, go home!” they shouted.

Minneapolis’s city council, unlike its mayor, seems to like the idea. Council members are expected to vote to dismantle the police department and “replace it with a transformative new model of public safety,” according to Council President Lisa Bender. It’s unclear what that would look like, but there are plenty of alternative models out there; municipalities should absolutely seize the moment as an opportunity to make policing less costly, deadly, and indifferent toward people’s rights.

But while many progressives are are now squarely behind the idea of defunding the police, the Democratic presidential nominee is not. Indeed, he wants to give cops more money.

“Vice President Joe Biden does not believe that police should be defunded,” a Biden campaign spokesperson announced in a statement.

On the contrary, Biden’s presidential platform would distribute an additional $300 million in federal grants via the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program, which makes it possible for municipalities all over the country to hire additional police officers. The COPS program was a result of the 1994 crime bill spearheaded by Biden, who then was a senator. It is largely responsible for producing one of the most pernicious trends in modern policing: the rise of cops in schools. As Tyler Koteskey and I observed in a 2017 Reason article, COPS grants have helped place more than 6,000 cops in K–12 institutions.

The unfortunate result, which might have been anticipated, is that school disciplinary matters are increasingly handled by law enforcement rather than counselors, teachers, and principles. This is the school-to-prison pipeline at work, and the Democratic candidate for president wants to increase its budget.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3h7uq05
via IFTTT

Amid Small Business Carnage, Fed Expands Eligibility Of Main Street Lending Program

Amid Small Business Carnage, Fed Expands Eligibility Of Main Street Lending Program

Tyler Durden

Mon, 06/08/2020 – 16:23

With stocks recovering all 2020 losses, one would think that the economy is firing on all cylinders. Unfortunately, based on the message just sent out by the Fed, nothing could be further from the truth.

While the market still waits for the Fed to officially start making loans on its Main Street Lending Program, today at 330pm, the Fed announced that it expanded the eligibility criteria for this facility “to allow more small and medium-sized businesses to be able to receive support.” The facility will be open for eligible lenders “soon,” while the burden on banks that create the loans would be lessened.

Changes to the eligibility criteria include:

  • Lowering the minimum loan size for certain loans to $250,000 from $500,000;
  • Increasing the maximum loan size for all facilities;
  • Increasing the term of each loan option to five years, from four years;
  • Extending the repayment period for all loans by delaying principal payments for two years, rather than one; and
  • Raising the Reserve Bank’s participation to 95% for all loans.

In short: America’s small businesses – and we mean really small business, those which desperately need as little as 250K to survive yet can’t find willing bank lenders – are in such dire shape that only the Fed has the willingness to step in and bail them out as banks refuse to take on the credit risk.

To juice bank interest in participating, going forward they will be required to hold only 5% of the loans on their balance sheet for all three facilities, far less than the 15% they had to hold previously.

“Supporting small and mid-sized businesses so they are ready to reopen and rehire workers will help foster a broad-based economic recovery,” Powell said in the statement explaining the expansion. “I am confident the changes we are making will improve the ability of the Main Street Lending Program to support employment during this difficult period.”

And here is the Fed again confusing solvency with liquidity, and assuming that just because business incur billions more in debt they will somehow become more viable or retain workers. Unfortunately, as we discussed on Friday, this simply won’t happen because whereas US corporations have already issued over $1.1 trillion in IG debt, the bulk of its has been retainer (or is being used to fund dividends and buybacks), even as millions of workers are being let go.

The Fed also unveiled that The Main Street program will be open for lender registration soon, and the central bank will start buying loans “shortly afterward.” The three facilities are backed by a $75 billion investment from the Treasury Department that’s part of the $454 billion allocated by Congress in the CARES Act for the Fed’s emergency-lending programs during the coronavirus pandemic. Expect the entire investment to be wiped out over the next few years as all the companies that take out the Fed-guaranteed loans file for bankruptcy anyway.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3dNSdzW Tyler Durden