Tag: posts

Broader Implications of “My Body, My Choice”

The recent passage of state laws imposing new restrictions on abortion has resulted in understandable anger in the pro-choice movement, and reiteration of the classic slogan “my body, my choice.”   Or, as philosopher Daniel Silvermint puts it in a much-retweeted response to one of the new “heartbeat” laws, “if a woman has a heartbeat, you can’t tell her what to do with her goddamn body, ever.”

I very much agree! I fear, however, that many who repeat this and similar slogans don’t embrace its other implications (which, I assume, apply to men as well as women). I hope they reflect further, and come to support more of them. Here are a few examples:

1. Organ markets should be legalized. People should be free to sell kidneys, for example (subject, perhaps, to informed consent requirements).  If someone wants to sell a kidney, the response to prohibitionists should be: “you can’t tell her what to do with her goddamn body, ever.” Your kidney is part of your body, and the decision to sell should be your choice. As an extra bonus, legalizing such sales would save many thousands of lives.

2. Laws against prostitution should be abolished. They most definitely restrict people’s freedom to control their own bodies (both prostitutes and their customers). The prostitute’s body belongs to her, and using it for prostitution is her choice. Prostitution bans also restrict the bodily autonomy of customers. Thus, we should reject laws that punish them, while letting the prostitutes themselves go free. The “johns” own their own bodies no less than the prostitutes do. The kind of voluntary sex you engage in with your body should be your choice.

3. The War on Drugs should be abolished. All of it. Not just the ban on marijuana. Its whole purpose is to restrict what sorts of substances you can put in your body. What you put in your body should be your choice. And, like the ban on organ sales,  the War on Drugs harms large numbers of people, both in the US and abroad, in countries like the Phillippines and Mexico.

4. The government should not try to control people’s diets through “sin taxes,” or  restrictions on the size of sodas, and other such regulations. Here too, the goal is to restrict what we put in our bodies. although I’m not a fan of other aspects of her worldview, Norway’s new health minister is right when she says that people should be allowed to “smoke, drink and eat as much red meat as they want.” If that leads to increased government spending on health care, the right solution is to restrict the subsidies, not bodily autonomy.

5. Draft registration, mandatory jury service, and all other forms of mandatory service should be abolished (if already in force) or taken off the political agenda (if merely proposed). All such policies literally expropriate people’s bodies. What work you do with your body should be your choice.

This list is far from exhaustive. Modest extensions of the argument would also cover many labor regulations and most immigration restrictions, for example. Both impose serious restrictions on bodily autonomy. But the above examples are at least enough to convey the general idea.

Several of the restrictions on liberty discussed above are probably even greater impositions than having to involuntarily bring a fetus to term. Bans on organ sales literally kill large numbers of people every year. The draft and other forms of mandatory national service often expropriate people’s bodies for years at a time, not “just” nine months. And if a draftee is forced to engage in combat, he or she may face a severe risk of death or injury (often greater than that endured by women giving birth).

It’s also worth pointing out that the items on the above list are, for the most part, easier cases for consistent advocates of bodily autonomy than abortion is. Few would deny that your autonomy does not include the right to attack other people. Thus, “my body, my choice” does not include a right to attack your body by breaking your nose with my fist. My right to my body is constrained by your right to yours.

Pro-lifers contend that abortion falls within this standard constraint on freedom because it takes the life of an innocent person (the fetus). The strength of that arguments depends on the issue of  the moral status of the fetus, and whether it has a right to life comparable to that of a person who has already been born. I think that in most cases (at least in the first trimester, when the vast majority of abortions happen), it does not. But I admit it poses a difficult moral issue.

By contrast, in most cases, no innocent third party’s life or liberty is threatened by the activities I listed above. In the rare exceptions where this is not true, the problem can be dealt with by narrowly targeted restrictions rather than by categorical bans—for example barring people from driving while drunk or high, rather than through drug and alcohol prohibition. Those who believe that “my body, my choice” should govern even this relatively difficult  case of abortion should be at least equally willing to apply it in easier cases, where it is much tougher to argue that there is a tradeoff between liberty and innocent life.

I do not believe any right should be absolute. A great enough harm—perhaps even if indirect—might justify restricting virtually any liberty, if that were the only way to prevent it. But those who take the principle of bodily autonomy seriously should at least adopt a strong presumption against restrictions, and only support them in cases where there is very strong evidence both that the harm exists and that restricting liberty will solve the problem without creating comparably serious harms of its own.

“My body, my choice” has broad implications. I don’t blame those who may not have carefully considered all of them. I ask only that they apply their own (well-founded) principles to more situations. If we truly believe that people have a right to control their own bodies, we should apply that ideal consistently. And it isn’t too late to start!

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2Jg8SAS
via IFTTT

Broader Implications of “My Body, My Choice”

The recent passage of state laws imposing new restrictions on abortion has resulted in understandable anger in the pro-choice movement, and reiteration of the classic slogan “my body, my choice.”   Or, as philosopher Daniel Silvermint puts it in a much-retweeted response to one of the new “heartbeat” laws, “if a woman has a heartbeat, you can’t tell her what to do with her goddamn body, ever.”

I very much agree! I fear, however, that many who repeat this and similar slogans don’t embrace its other implications (which, I assume, apply to men as well as women). I hope they reflect further, and come to support more of them. Here are a few of those implications.

1. Organ markets should be legalized. People should be free to sell kidneys, for example (subject, perhaps. to informed consent requirements).  If someone wants to sell a kidney, the response to prohibitionists should be: “you can’t tell her what to do with her goddamn body, ever.” Your kidney is part of your body, and the decision to sell should be your choice. As an extra bonus, legalizing such sales would save many thousands of lives.

2. Laws against prostitution should be abolished. They most definitely restrict people’s freedom to control their own bodies (both prostitutes and their customers). The prostitute’s body belongs to her, and using it for prostitution is her choice. Prostitution bans also restrict the bodily autonomy of customers. Thus, we should reject laws that punish them, while letting the prostitutes themselves go free. The “johns” own their own bodies no less than the prostitutes do. The kind of voluntary sex you engage in with your body should be your choice.

3. The War on Drugs should be abolished. All of it. Not just the ban on marijuana. Its whole purpose is to restrict what sorts of substances you can put in your body. What you put in your body should be your choice. And, like the ban on organ sales,  the War on Drugs harms large numbers of people, both in the US and abroad, in countries like the Phillippines and Mexico.

4. The government should not try to control people’s diets through “sin taxes,” or  restrictions on the size of sodas, and other such regulations. Here too, the goal is to restrict what we put in our bodies. although I’m not a fan of other aspects of her worldview, Norway’s new health minister is right when she says that people should be allowed to “smoke, drink and eat as much red meat as they want.” If that leads to increased government spending on health care, the right solution is to restrict the subsidies, not bodily autonomy.

5. Draft registration, mandatory jury service, and all other forms of mandatory service should be abolished (if already in force) or taken off the political agenda (if merely proposed). All such policies literally expropriate people’s bodies. What work you do with your body should be your choice.

This list is far from exhaustive. Modest extensions of the argument would also cover many labor regulations and most immigration restrictions, for example. Both impose serious restrictions on bodily autonomy. But the above examples are at least enough to convey the general idea.

Several of the restrictions on liberty discussed above are probably even greater impositions than having to involuntarily bring a fetus to term. Bans on organ sales literally kill large numbers of people every year. The draft and other forms of mandatory national service often expropriate people’s bodies for years at a time, not “just” nine months. And if a draftee is forced to engage in combat, he or she may face a severe risk of death or injury (often greater than that endured by women giving birth).

It’s also worth pointing out that the items on the above list are, for the most part, easier cases for consistent advocates of bodily autonomy than abortion is. Few would deny that your autonomy does not include the right to attack other people. Thus, “my body, my choice” does not include a right to attack your body by breaking your nose with my fist. My right to my body is constrained by your right to yours.

Pro-lifers contend that abortion falls within this standard constraint on freedom because it takes the life of an innocent person (the fetus). The strength of that arguments depends on the issue of  the moral status of the fetus, and whether it has a right to life comparable to that of a person who has already been born. I think that in most cases (at least in the first trimester, when the vast majority of abortions happen), it does not. But I admit it poses a difficult moral issue.

By contrast, in most cases, no innocent third party’s life or liberty is threatened by the activities I listed above. In the rare exceptions where this is not true, the problem can be dealt with by narrowly targeted restrictions rather than by categorical bans—for example barring people from driving while drunk or high, rather than through drug and alcohol prohibition. Those who believe that “my body, my choice” should govern even this relatively difficult  case of abortion should be at least equally willing to apply it in easier cases, where it is much tougher to argue that there is a tradeoff between liberty and innocent life.

I do not believe any right should be absolute. A great enough harm—perhaps even if indirect—might justify restricting virtually any liberty, if that were the only way to prevent it. But those who take the principle of bodily autonomy seriously should at least adopt a strong presumption against restrictions, and only support them in cases where there is very strong evidence both that the harm exists and that restricting liberty will solve the problem without creating comparably serious harms of its own.

“My body, my choice” has broad implications. I don’t blame those who may not have carefully considered all of them. I ask only that they apply their own (well-founded) principles to more situations. If we truly believe that people have a right to control their own bodies, we should apply that ideal consistently. And it isn’t too late to start!

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2Jg8SAS
via IFTTT

Detroit Will Pay Out $60,000 to Woman Whose Dogs Were Shot on a Marijuana Raid

The City of Detroit will pay out $60,000 to settle a federal civil rights lawsuit by a woman who says police wantonly shot and killed her three dogs during a marijuana raid three years ago.

The plaintiff, Nikita Smith, claimed in a 2016 lawsuit that officers from Detroit’s Major Violators Unit acted as a “dog death squad” when they executed a narcotics search warrant on her house for a suspected marijuana offense, shooting three of her pit bulls, including one that was behind a closed bathroom door. Extremely graphic photos entered into evidence in the case show bullet holes riddling the outside of the door and the dog dead inside the bathroom.

Smith was arrested for marijuana possession, but the charges were later dropped when officers failed to appear in court.

The settlement is the latest in a string of costly payouts for Detroit due to dog shootings during drug raids. It also set new precedent in Fourth Amendment law. Detroit tried to argue that, since Smith’s dogs were unlicensed, in violation of Detroit’s municipal code, she had no legitimate property interest in them under the Fourth Amendment. The court rejected this argument.

Smith’s attorney, Chris Olson, calls the decision “a milestone in police-dog shooting cases that continue to plague the United States.

“The decision was significant because it denies police a ‘get out of jail free card’ if the deceased dog is later discovered to have been unlicensed,” he continues. “The decision is especially significant because the vast majority of dogs are unlicensed. The upshot is that the Fourth Amendment prohibits police officers from shooting dogs where the shooting is more intrusive than necessary, and citizens do not have to pay a dog license fee to enjoy their Fourth Amendment rights.”

A 2016 Reason investigation found that the department’s Major Violators Unit, which conducts drug raids across the city, has a nasty habit of leaving dead dogs in its wake and generating civil rights lawsuits. A follow-up investigation found that Detroit police shot 54 dogs in 2017, twice as many as Chicago.

Last year, Detroit paid $225,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by Kenneth Savage and Ashley Franklin, who claimed Detroit police officers shot their three dogs while the animals were enclosed behind an 8-foot-tall fence—all so the officers could confiscate several potted marijuana plants in the backyard.

In 2015, the city approved a $100,000 settlement to a man after police shot his dog while it was securely chained to a fence.

One officer involved in the Smith raid has shot 80 dogs over the course of his career, according to “destruction of animal” reports filed by Detroit police officers in 2017 and obtained by Reason. Two other officers involved in the Smith raid testified in depositions that they had shot “fewer than 20” and “at least 19” dogs over the course of their careers.

Smith’s case was also an unprecedented test of the Fourth Amendment as it applies to pets. In such cases, police departments typically argue that an officer’s actions were reasonable under the circumstances—and courts give much deference to those arguments. Smith’s case appears to be the first time federal courts had considered the question of whether unlicensed pets are protected by the Fourth Amendment.

A U.S. District Court judge agreed with the city, dismissing Smith’s lawsuit in 2017. “When a person owns a dog that is unlicensed, in the eyes of the law it is no different than owning any other type of illegal property,” the judge ruled. But the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the lower court’s ruling against Smith last year. The Sixth Circuit declared that not only was Smith entitled to some process under Michigan law before her dogs were “seized” (i.e. killed), but that her dogs, even if unlicensed, were still protected from unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

“Just as the police cannot destroy every unlicensed car or gun on the spot, they cannot kill every unlicensed dog on the spot,” the appeals court writes.

The case was kicked back to the lower court, but instead of continuing to trial, Detroit decided this week to settle.

A similar lawsuit is still pending in federal court in the case of Joel Castro and Nicole Motyka, who say narcotics officers raided their house and shot two of their pitbulls, despite the dogs being behind a barrier in the kitchen. The officers found 26 marijuana plants inside, which shouldn’t have been a surprise. Castro was a state-licensed medical marijuana caregiver.

Marijuana charges against the couple were later dropped.

The Detroit Police Department and the Detroit Law Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2VfOq4j
via IFTTT

Detroit Will Pay Out $60,000 to Woman Whose Dogs Were Shot on a Marijuana Raid

The City of Detroit will pay out $60,000 to settle a federal civil rights lawsuit by a woman who says police wantonly shot and killed her three dogs during a marijuana raid three years ago.

The plaintiff, Nikita Smith, claimed in a 2016 lawsuit that officers from Detroit’s Major Violators Unit acted as a “dog death squad” when they executed a narcotics search warrant on her house for a suspected marijuana offense, shooting three of her pit bulls, including one that was behind a closed bathroom door. Extremely graphic photos entered into evidence in the case show bullet holes riddling the outside of the door and the dog dead inside the bathroom.

Smith was arrested for marijuana possession, but the charges were later dropped when officers failed to appear in court.

The settlement is the latest in a string of costly payouts for Detroit due to dog shootings during drug raids. It also set new precedent in Fourth Amendment law. Detroit tried to argue that, since Smith’s dogs were unlicensed, in violation of Detroit’s municipal code, she had no legitimate property interest in them under the Fourth Amendment. The court rejected this argument.

Smith’s attorney, Chris Olson, calls the decision “a milestone in police-dog shooting cases that continue to plague the United States.

“The decision was significant because it denies police a ‘get out of jail free card’ if the deceased dog is later discovered to have been unlicensed,” he continues. “The decision is especially significant because the vast majority of dogs are unlicensed. The upshot is that the Fourth Amendment prohibits police officers from shooting dogs where the shooting is more intrusive than necessary, and citizens do not have to pay a dog license fee to enjoy their Fourth Amendment rights.”

A 2016 Reason investigation found that the department’s Major Violators Unit, which conducts drug raids across the city, has a nasty habit of leaving dead dogs in its wake and generating civil rights lawsuits. A follow-up investigation found that Detroit police shot 54 dogs in 2017, twice as many as Chicago.

Last year, Detroit paid $225,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by Kenneth Savage and Ashley Franklin, who claimed Detroit police officers shot their three dogs while the animals were enclosed behind an 8-foot-tall fence—all so the officers could confiscate several potted marijuana plants in the backyard.

In 2015, the city approved a $100,000 settlement to a man after police shot his dog while it was securely chained to a fence.

One officer involved in the Smith raid has shot 80 dogs over the course of his career, according to “destruction of animal” reports filed by Detroit police officers in 2017 and obtained by Reason. Two other officers involved in the Smith raid testified in depositions that they had shot “fewer than 20” and “at least 19” dogs over the course of their careers.

Smith’s case was also an unprecedented test of the Fourth Amendment as it applies to pets. In such cases, police departments typically argue that an officer’s actions were reasonable under the circumstances—and courts give much deference to those arguments. Smith’s case appears to be the first time federal courts had considered the question of whether unlicensed pets are protected by the Fourth Amendment.

A U.S. District Court judge agreed with the city, dismissing Smith’s lawsuit in 2017. “When a person owns a dog that is unlicensed, in the eyes of the law it is no different than owning any other type of illegal property,” the judge ruled. But the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the lower court’s ruling against Smith last year. The Sixth Circuit declared that not only was Smith entitled to some process under Michigan law before her dogs were “seized” (i.e. killed), but that her dogs, even if unlicensed, were still protected from unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

“Just as the police cannot destroy every unlicensed car or gun on the spot, they cannot kill every unlicensed dog on the spot,” the appeals court writes.

The case was kicked back to the lower court, but instead of continuing to trial, Detroit decided this week to settle.

A similar lawsuit is still pending in federal court in the case of Joel Castro and Nicole Motyka, who say narcotics officers raided their house and shot two of their pitbulls, despite the dogs being behind a barrier in the kitchen. The officers found 26 marijuana plants inside, which shouldn’t have been a surprise. Castro was a state-licensed medical marijuana caregiver.

Marijuana charges against the couple were later dropped.

The Detroit Police Department and the Detroit Law Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2VfOq4j
via IFTTT

Government Loses Denaturalization Case in U.S. v. Malik

The government failed in its attempt to denaturalize Pakistan-born Afaq Ahmed Malik, and the opinion from the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas is here. The government was unable to prove its accusation that Malik had not divorced his wife in Pakistan before marrying an American woman through whom he obtained permanent residency and later citizenship.

Malik’s defense attorneys note some of the significant problems in the government’s behavior and case here, while you have to read the decision itself for some of the other gems. A few noteworthy ones:

  • The government was sanctioned for its failure to turn over relevant documents after its investigation into Malik’s divorce decree.
  • The district court denied expert witness status to two supposed experts that the government brought in. One of them was neither familiar with Pakistani law nor spoke or read Urdu, the language in which the documents were written about which he was testifying.
  • Numerous mistakes were made when immigration officers questioned and evaluated Malik, including failures to follow protocols regarding the way that questions were supposed to be asked and answers recorded.

This case highlights the need for skepticism about taking the government’s claims at face value in denaturalization cases and thus also reinforces the crucial need for (effective) defense counsel in these situations. As Cassandra Robertson and I have argued, providing counsel to defendants not just in criminal but also civil denaturalization proceedings should not be optional.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2E1pJmy
via IFTTT

Government Loses Denaturalization Case in U.S. v. Malik

The government failed in its attempt to denaturalize Pakistan-born Afaq Ahmed Malik, and the opinion from the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas is here. The government was unable to prove its accusation that Malik had not divorced his wife in Pakistan before marrying an American woman through whom he obtained permanent residency and later citizenship.

Malik’s defense attorneys note some of the significant problems in the government’s behavior and case here, while you have to read the decision itself for some of the other gems. A few noteworthy ones:

  • The government was sanctioned for its failure to turn over relevant documents after its investigation into Malik’s divorce decree.
  • The district court denied expert witness status to two supposed experts that the government brought in. One of them was neither familiar with Pakistani law nor spoke or read Urdu, the language in which the documents were written about which he was testifying.
  • Numerous mistakes were made when immigration officers questioned and evaluated Malik, including failures to follow protocols regarding the way that questions were supposed to be asked and answers recorded.

This case highlights the need for skepticism about taking the government’s claims at face value in denaturalization cases and thus also reinforces the crucial need for (effective) defense counsel in these situations. As Cassandra Robertson and I have argued, providing counsel to defendants not just in criminal but also civil denaturalization proceedings should not be optional.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2E1pJmy
via IFTTT

After Losing Nearly $4 Billion Last Year, Postal Service on Track to Lose $7 Billion This Year

The U.S. Postal Service lost more than $2 billion during the second quarter of the fiscal year, putting it on track to finish the current year more than $7 billion in the red—way worse than the nearly $4 billion in losses it posted last year.

In its quarterly fiscal report, published today, the Post Office reported small decreases in mail volume and overall revenue compared to the same quarter of 2018. Its big losses are driven by a sharp increase in expenses, primarily workers’ compensation costs, pension liabilities, and payments for retirees’ health benefits.

For the fiscal year that ended on September 30, 2018, the Postal Service recorded a then-record loss of $3.9 billion. At the time, Postmaster General Megan Brennan bluntly declared that the agency “cannot generate revenue or cut enough costs to pay our bills” and predicted that the agency would continue to post losses at “an accelerating rate.”

After losing $1.5 billion in the first quarter of the current fiscal year, the Post Office has now lost $3.6 billion in just six months. That comes even after an increase in the cost of sending first-class mail. The cost of a stamp jumped 5 percent on January 1, and other mailing services increased by 2.5 percent. The agency predicted that those changes would increase revenue by $1.7 billion—but expenses have been outpacing revenues by a wide margin.

It’s not exactly news that personnel costs are driving the Postal Service’s financial problems. The agency has $100 billion in unfunded pension liabilities and “no clear path to profitability,” according to a White House assessment report released last year. The Post Office has lost $69 billion since 2007, and it probably would have gone bankrupt long ago if it were a private entity—FedEx and UPS certainly wouldn’t exist today if they were posting annual losses of $4 billion. And they pay taxes, which the Postal Service does not.

As Reason has been arguing for literally 50 years, the postal service should be privatized. It would probably require significant restructuring and service changes for the privatized service to net a profit, and the federal government would likely need to absorb the current debts. That means it will only become more difficult to free the Post Office from government control as the agency’s debt mount. Still, it could net a windfall to help pay off the service’s massive liabilities—the Cornell economist Richard Geddes has found that a postal IPO could raise $40 billion.

“Privatization would give the [Post Office] the flexibility to save itself, allowing access to debt and equity markets for capital investment—a lifeline for a company that has long been short of cash and deferring the purchase of vital new vehicles and technologies,” Chris Edwards, an economist at the Cato Institute, writes in National Review.

Unfortunately, some members of Congress seem more interested in having the Postal Service expand its losing business into new areas. An overhaul of banking and credit card systems floated this week by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) would effectively convert the Post Office into a bank of sorts, offering checking and savings accounts.

In other words, it would take a government agency that’s already failing to compete with private sector alternatives in the shipping industry (despite massive structural advantages) and let it fail in competition against private banks as well—and would force poorer Americans to rely on that floundering institution as their primary provider of banking services. As Reason‘s Peter Suderman wrote yesterday, this is “not a new idea, but it is a bad one.”

Republicans aren’t likely to go for that plan, but fixing the Post Office’s problems don’t seem to be high on their list of priorities either. The Trump administration included the Post Office in a 2017 report highlighting services that could be privatized, but that survey seems to be mostly gathering dust right now.

The Postal Service, meanwhile, continues to gather debt.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2YinfYL
via IFTTT

After Losing Nearly $4 Billion Last Year, Postal Service on Track to Lose $7 Billion This Year

The U.S. Postal Service lost more than $2 billion during the second quarter of the fiscal year, putting it on track to finish the current year more than $7 billion in the red—way worse than the nearly $4 billion in losses it posted last year.

In its quarterly fiscal report, published today, the Post Office reported small decreases in mail volume and overall revenue compared to the same quarter of 2018. Its big losses are driven by a sharp increase in expenses, primarily workers’ compensation costs, pension liabilities, and payments for retirees’ health benefits.

For the fiscal year that ended on September 30, 2018, the Postal Service recorded a then-record loss of $3.9 billion. At the time, Postmaster General Megan Brennan bluntly declared that the agency “cannot generate revenue or cut enough costs to pay our bills” and predicted that the agency would continue to post losses at “an accelerating rate.”

After losing $1.5 billion in the first quarter of the current fiscal year, the Post Office has now lost $3.6 billion in just six months. That comes even after an increase in the cost of sending first-class mail. The cost of a stamp jumped 5 percent on January 1, and other mailing services increased by 2.5 percent. The agency predicted that those changes would increase revenue by $1.7 billion—but expenses have been outpacing revenues by a wide margin.

It’s not exactly news that personnel costs are driving the Postal Service’s financial problems. The agency has $100 billion in unfunded pension liabilities and “no clear path to profitability,” according to a White House assessment report released last year. The Post Office has lost $69 billion since 2007, and it probably would have gone bankrupt long ago if it were a private entity—FedEx and UPS certainly wouldn’t exist today if they were posting annual losses of $4 billion. And they pay taxes, which the Postal Service does not.

As Reason has been arguing for literally 50 years, the postal service should be privatized. It would probably require significant restructuring and service changes for the privatized service to net a profit, and the federal government would likely need to absorb the current debts. That means it will only become more difficult to free the Post Office from government control as the agency’s debt mount. Still, it could net a windfall to help pay off the service’s massive liabilities—the Cornell economist Richard Geddes has found that a postal IPO could raise $40 billion.

“Privatization would give the [Post Office] the flexibility to save itself, allowing access to debt and equity markets for capital investment—a lifeline for a company that has long been short of cash and deferring the purchase of vital new vehicles and technologies,” Chris Edwards, an economist at the Cato Institute, writes in National Review.

Unfortunately, some members of Congress seem more interested in having the Postal Service expand its losing business into new areas. An overhaul of banking and credit card systems floated this week by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) would effectively convert the Post Office into a bank of sorts, offering checking and savings accounts.

In other words, it would take a government agency that’s already failing to compete with private sector alternatives in the shipping industry (despite massive structural advantages) and let it fail in competition against private banks as well—and would force poorer Americans to rely on that floundering institution as their primary provider of banking services. As Reason‘s Peter Suderman wrote yesterday, this is “not a new idea, but it is a bad one.”

Republicans aren’t likely to go for that plan, but fixing the Post Office’s problems don’t seem to be high on their list of priorities either. The Trump administration included the Post Office in a 2017 report highlighting services that could be privatized, but that survey seems to be mostly gathering dust right now.

The Postal Service, meanwhile, continues to gather debt.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2YinfYL
via IFTTT

Princeton Student Activists Have a List of Title IX Demands That Aren’t All Bad

Princeton students have occupied the space in front of Nassau Hall, the campus’s administrative building, and are engaged in a round-the-clock protest until university leadership addresses their demands relating to the prevention of sexual misconduct.

Surprisingly, the demands are not all bad.

“In the service of survivors, fix Title IX,” activists chanted on Wednesday, the first day of the ongoing protest.

Title IX is the federal statute that outlaws sex-based discrimination on campuses, and was cited by the Obama administration as justification for compelling colleges and universities to take stronger action combat sexual harassment and misconduct. The policies recommended by President Obama’s Education Department were unfriendly to the due process rights of accused students, and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has revised them.

When activists press for Title IX-related changes on campuses, they are typically demanding that authorities adopt a “believe all victims” mentality, which would make it less likely that accused students would receive fair treatment. I’ve been harshly critical of this kind of activism, in the past.

The Princeton students’ demands, though, are not all bad. For one thing, they have asked for the university to devise a restorative justice option for victims who “want to pursue alternative pathways for healing and justice that fall outside the punitive system.” If both the accused and the accuser would prefer to reach some other arrangement regarding their dispute, they should be permitted to do so. (Indeed, one of the many reasons DeVos’s guidance constituted an improvement is that it allows for such an option.)

The activists have also demanded “full access to statistics relaying the racial and socioeconomic makeup of both alleged and convicted perpetrators. We want to ensure, as a community, perpetrators are being held accountable at the same rate—regardless of socioeconomic and racial background.” What they will likely find is that male students of color—and immigrants—are overrepresented among those disciplined under Title IX, consistent with the preliminary evidence gathered at other colleges and universities. It’s important to spread awareness of the fact that young men of color are disproportionately harmed when sexual misconduct adjudicators abandon basic principles of fairness.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2DZQoQM
via IFTTT

Princeton Student Activists Have a List of Title IX Demands That Aren’t All Bad

Princeton students have occupied the space in front of Nassau Hall, the campus’s administrative building, and are engaged in a round-the-clock protest until university leadership addresses their demands relating to the prevention of sexual misconduct.

Surprisingly, the demands are not all bad.

“In the service of survivors, fix Title IX,” activists chanted on Wednesday, the first day of the ongoing protest.

Title IX is the federal statute that outlaws sex-based discrimination on campuses, and was cited by the Obama administration as justification for compelling colleges and universities to take stronger action combat sexual harassment and misconduct. The policies recommended by President Obama’s Education Department were unfriendly to the due process rights of accused students, and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has revised them.

When activists press for Title IX-related changes on campuses, they are typically demanding that authorities adopt a “believe all victims” mentality, which would make it less likely that accused students would receive fair treatment. I’ve been harshly critical of this kind of activism, in the past.

The Princeton students’ demands, though, are not all bad. For one thing, they have asked for the university to devise a restorative justice option for victims who “want to pursue alternative pathways for healing and justice that fall outside the punitive system.” If both the accused and the accuser would prefer to reach some other arrangement regarding their dispute, they should be permitted to do so. (Indeed, one of the many reasons DeVos’s guidance constituted an improvement is that it allows for such an option.)

The activists have also demanded “full access to statistics relaying the racial and socioeconomic makeup of both alleged and convicted perpetrators. We want to ensure, as a community, perpetrators are being held accountable at the same rate—regardless of socioeconomic and racial background.” What they will likely find is that male students of color—and immigrants—are overrepresented among those disciplined under Title IX, consistent with the preliminary evidence gathered at other colleges and universities. It’s important to spread awareness of the fact that young men of color are disproportionately harmed when sexual misconduct adjudicators abandon basic principles of fairness.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2DZQoQM
via IFTTT