Category: Law

Law and Jurisprudence

The “Hot Button Issue” of Abortion

I wanted to write a little about this because I rarely do. I am also hoping that I can bring a somewhat “nuanced” viewpoint to a discussion that tends to be driven by pure emotion. Right off the bat, I will state that I do think there should generally be some legal right to terminate a pregnancy, with a recognition that there may be some legal “line drawing”, which I think reasonable parties can disagree on. If you disagree with me, please at least hear me out.

Biological evidence seems to show that a fetus does not have a rational capacity. In fact, it may be that even a newborn infant does not have a rational capacity, which develops some time after birth. This is because the cerebral cortex appears to be underdeveloped, even at birth. This feature of the human brain is responsible for most of what we think makes us human. It also appears to be the physical structure involved in what philosophers would call “the rational faculty”. The reason for this late development of the cerebral cortex has to do with how the fetal body and brain develops, which follows the path of evolution. For instance, human fetuses have gills and a tail at a very early stage. Since the cerebral cortex developed last in the our pre-human ancestors, it makes since this feature comes about last. It’s also necessary to keep brain size fairly small so thet the baby can pass through the mother’s birth canal. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100712154422.htm

The fact that a cerebral cortex is not fully developed even at birth is significant to me because rights are based in the fact that human beings can deal with each other on the basis of reason and persuasion, making the use of physical force against each other unnecessary:

“The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind…” (Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand.)

However, the point at which a baby develops a rational faculty in biology is probably not fully understood, and I will move forward with the rest of my argument on this issue without reference to whether a baby or a fetus has a sufficiently developed cerebral cortex or not. My argument for some legal right to abortion for some period of time during pregnancy doesn’t stand or fall on the issue of when the cerebral cortex is sufficiently developed.

How are rights violated? Rights are violated by other’s use of force to deprive you of a value against your will.

“Man’s rights can be violated only by the use of physical force. It is only by means of physical force that one man can deprive another of his life, or enslave him, or rob him, or prevent him from pursuing his own goals, or compel him to act against his own rational judgment.” (The Virtue of Selfishness, “The Nature of Government”, Ayn Rand)

This does not mean that force can never be used. It just means the times that force can be used are limited to those in which you are not trying to deprive another person of a value. For instance, force can be used in retaliation or self-defense.

Of special note in this context, is that there are times a person can use force against others, and it isn’t just when they are defending themselves or using retaliatory force.

There are at least two types force you can use to protect yourself:

1. Self-defense from intentional murder or other crime.
2. Use of force to prevent an unintentional collision with another person. For instance, if you use force to stop someone who has tripped from falling into you and knocking you over.

My position is that terminating a pregnancy is like this second type of use of force. It’s not force used in self defense. It is force used to stop the purely reflexive act of a fetus in attaching itself to a mother’s body during pregnancy, or the act of removing it once it has reflexively attached itself to the mother’s body.

Why would a woman need to terminate a pregnancy? All pregnancies are inherently risky for a woman. Women still die in child birth in the first world.

If she becomes pregnant and decides that she doesn’t want to take that risk, then she cannot reason with the fetus to explain why she wants it to detach itself from her body. It’s a purely reflexive act, regardless of how developed a fetus’ brain is.

Abortion is analogous to self-defense. The minimum of force is being used to detach the fetus, similar to how the minimum of force is used to prevent someone from killing you.

Does it matter that the mother chose to have sex, while In the above scenario of someone tripping and falling into you, you didn’t choose to have someone fall on you?

I would note that this would still justify abortion in the cases of rape. Since a woman who is raped didn’t choose to have sex in that scenario, my analogy is “spot on”.

At this point we are dancing around whether the fetus has any rights. What are rights? Why do we need them? This is where I and a religious advocate of rights part ways. We have fundamentally different definitions of “rights” and their basis.

Rights imply an autonomous actor who needs to take action to gain the values necessary for living. A fetus, by its very nature is physically attached to the mother. Choice doesn’t play a role in its existence.

If the mother could somehow transfer the fetus to an artificial womb, with no health danger to the mother, that would be something to consider, but we don’t have that technology yet. That means, for now, abortion is the only option for a woman who doesn’t want to risk her health with a pregnancy.

Parenthetically, I think a woman shouldn’t be able to force a man who isn’t her husband to pay child support. If a woman wants the father of her child to pay for her child, she should enter into a contract with him. I also think a man should have no right to see a child or be a part of its life without a contract with the mother. This “contract” is basically what marriage is about -or should be under an ideal political system. (That, and the sharing of one’s finances and property with the other person.)

At this point the more wild-eyed will go with the ‘reductio ad absurdum ‘ argument: “If abortion is okay, then you must think killing newborn babies is okay, since they cannot take care of themselves and there is a health-cost imposed on the mother by that too. Furthermore, maybe science will show that the rational faculty doesn’t fully develop until age 2.”

My response is: 1) the baby is detached, biologically, from the mother after birth. 2) Given that fact of biological detachment, it makes sense to “draw the line”, legally, there and presume a baby is capable of rational thought, even if such capacity may not still arise for some time. These are the minimum criteria I hold for an organism being accorded individual rights: 1, A biologically distinct organism, that, 2, has a rational faculty or capacity of some sort, necessitating that you can deal with it on the basis of reason and persuasion, unlike the lower animals that you can only deal with by means of force.

Should the “line” for when abortion is legal be drawn somewhere before birth? Say, at seven months, or even six? Should some regulation of the types of abortions, or when abortions are allowed prior to 9 months, be in place? I am willing to entertain those sorts of arguments. (Assuming no unusually high level of health threat to the mother, or some massive birth defect is discovered, after the general prohibition date, in which case there should be a judicial exception of some sort.)

Would I personally want my wife or girlfriend to have an abortion? Assuming that: One, she hadn’t been raped, two, she had no unusually high level of health risk, and, three, the fetus had no birth defects, then I wouldn’t want her to do it. I’d ask her not to, and try to talk her out of it. But, at the end of the day, I recognize it’s not my body, it’s not my health risk, and it’s not my decision.

Comparing Interracial Crime Statistics

I try to be very careful with statistics. First, there is the possibility that someone has actually misrepresented the underlying data. Second, even if the underlying data is correct, it is easy for a statistician with an agenda to use mathematical techniques to show results that don’t really give a correct context for the data.

When it comes to levels of crime committed by different racial groups, it’s really hard to find reliable data. (My theory on that is because most left-leaning academics know what it will show, and they don’t want the public to know it.)

I knew that black people commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime. (That is, they are only about 13% of the population, but they commit more than 13% of the violent crimes.) What I was having trouble finding was numbers on interracial crime -that is the number of black on white violent crimes and the number of white on black violent crimes.

Thanks to an article , I found good credible data from the FBI on interracial murders. So, for instance, in 2015, of the 3,167 white people murdered, 500 of those victims were murdered by a black person. In 2015, of the 2,664 black people murdered, 229 of them were murdered by a white person. (Intra-racial murder is much more prevalent for both groups. In other words, most whites are murdered by other whites, and most blacks are murdered by other blacks. But, that is not what I am focusing on here.)

So, there were 500 murders of white people committed by a black person in 2015 and there were 229 murders of a black person committed by a white person. Right away, that number is clearly disproportional from the number of black people in the United States. Since black people make up only about 13% of the population, the fact 500 white people were murdered by blacks, while only 229 black people were murdered by whites is remarkable.

But, I don’t know exactly how to compare these two numbers. My probability and statistics skills are not that strong. One possible way to compare them is to take the total number of black on white murders (500) and divide that by the total number of black people in America. (Roughly, 40.5 Million). Similarly, take the number of white on black murders (229) and divide that by the number of white people in America. (Roughly 233.7 Million). This will give you:

500/40.5 Million= 0.00001235 and 229/233.7 Million = 0.00000098

Then, you turn both of these into percentages by multiplying them by 100, which is: 0.001235% and 0.000098%

My thinking is that this is like rolling a six-sided die. The probability that you will roll a 6 is 1/6. The probability that you will roll a 5 or a 6 on one roll is 1/3.

You can think of the statistics on homicide above as like rolling two different dice. One die is a 40.5 Million-sided die. This is the black on white crime die. There are 500 “sides” of that die that would be a black on white crime, while the rest of the sides are all the black people who don’t murder white people. Similarly, there is another 233.7 Million-sided die, and on that one, there are 299 sides that are white people who commit a white on black murder. If you make that assumption, then the way to compare the two probabilities seems like it would be to take the first percentage, 0.001235% and divide it by the second percentage, 0.000098%. The result is 0.001235%/0.000098% = 12.6. To me, this means the probability of a black on white murder is 12.6 times as great as a white on black murder.

However, I am not sure this reasoning makes sense entirely. I am assuming that *every* black on white murder and *every* white on black murder is committed by different people. In other words, I’m assuming that of the 500 black on white murders, each murder was committed by a different black person. It’s possible that the *same* black person committed all of the 500 black on white murders in 2015. You cannot tell from these numbers alone. (Same for the white on black murders.)

It’s also possible that I don’t understand probability calculations very well (which I don’t), and I’m making some other mistake. I wish more people would discuss this matter, and try to come up with good numbers, but the data, much less an analysis of it, seems to be almost completely non-existent. (Like I said, I think most people know what the results of the analysis would be, and they don’t like to think about it, or they have a political agenda.)

 

 

Evidence

Lets say Albert tells me he saw Victor commit a murder 30 years ago.

Victor categorically denies it.

I say to Albert: Do you have any physical evidence of this murder? (Even a dead body?)

Albert: No

I say to Albert: Do you have any other witnesses that can corroborate what you are saying?

Albert: No, in fact some of the people who I say were there say they don’t remember this.

I say to Albert: Where were you when this happened?

Albert: I was at a party.

Me: Were you drinking?

Albert: Yes.

Me: How long ago did this happen?

Albert: 30 years ago.

I don’t actually think Albert has said anything here. All he has is his statement, and he admits that he was drinking. I know drinking alters perception of reality and memory. https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa63/aa63.htm

Albert has no credibility, and I’m simply going to regard his assertion as “arbitrary”. He has no credible evidence to back up this assertion. Albert’s assertion is neither true nor false. It is simply “arbitrary”. It’s like the claim: “There’s an invisible gremlin on my shoulder, but only I can see it. Now prove that I’m lying.” The onus of proof is on he, or she, who makes the assertion.

“‘Arbitrary’ means a claim put forth in the absence of evidence of any sort, perceptual or conceptual; its basis is neither direct observation nor any kind of theoretical argument. [An arbitrary idea is] a sheer assertion with no attempt to validate it or connect it to reality.” http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/arbitrary.html

If your response is: “You can’t prove Albert didn’t see this murder,” then you’re essentially asking Victor to “prove a negative”. Victor says it didn’t happen. How is he supposed to present evidence of something that didn’t happen, when the person making the assertion hasn’t really presented any credible evidence for it?

Now lets say two people both make an assertion that on two separate, and unrelated, occasions, Victor committed two separate murders. They both admit they had been drinking at the time, and have no other witnesses to corroborate what they assert, nor do they have any physical evidence to back up what they assert. The fact that two people (or three, or four) make completely unrelated assertions doesn’t somehow make any one of those assertions more or less true. You cannot say “A is true because B is true,” and then turn around and say: “B is true because A is true.” I think this is an example of “Begging the Question”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

If you could show that Victor had, in fact committed one murder with some independent evidence of that murder, then that probably would be some evidence that he had committed the second murder. This is because we know that someone who does an action one time will tend to act in accordance with a pattern or habit when doing the same action on another occasion. But, you’d first have to put forth some independent evidence that he committed the first murder. Simply using the unsupported assertion that Victor committed a first murder to prove that he committed a second, unrelated, murder, and, in turn, using that second, unsupported assertion of an unrelated murder to prove that he committed the first murder, is bad reasoning.

Now lets say you were accusing Victor of some sort of sex crime, like indecent exposure or attempted rape. Victor says it didn’t happen. He denies it. If a person claims that they had been drinking alcohol 30 years ago when they witnessed this incident, does that hurt their credibility as a witness? Yes. The analysis is the same. If they have no physical evidence of this, and no other witnesses to corroborate their story, then the accuser has made what can only be described as an arbitrary assertion with no credible evidence to back it up.

The fact that a second accuser comes forward and makes an accusation of a separate, unrelated sex crime, where the accuser admits she was very intoxicated, doesn’t somehow make it more or less likely that the other accusation is true. If fifty women come forward making fifty different claims of completely unrelated criminal acts on separate occasions, that doesn’t somehow make any one of those accusations any more or less true unless you can show that at least one of those accusations is true with independent evidence. (In which case you could say the one independently established assertion is proof of a habit.)

Most people will accept my reasoning on the murder, but will want to say that attempted rape is different. They will likely say that women are generally embarrassed or ashamed to report rape, and that this is evidence that a woman, on any given occasion, is telling the truth. This is the fallacy of division. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division Even if 99% of the women making rape allegations are telling the truth, that doesn’t mean you can say, in any given instance, that a woman accusing a man of rape is telling the truth. We know that some percentage of women make false rape accusations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case So, you cannot simply assume that any particular woman, in any particular case, is telling the truth.

Applying these principles to the case of Judge Kavanaugh, we have two women who admit that they were drinking when each of these incidents happened. I base my understanding of the situation on two news articles, that I recommend you read:

First alleged incident: http://www.waxahachietx.com/zz/news/20180916/kavanaugh-accuser-speaks-out-on-sexual-assault-claim

Second alleged incident: https://www.businessinsider.com/brett-kavanaugh-sexual-assault-yale-deborah-ramirez-2018-9

As far as I can tell, neither of these women has found any independent witnesses to corroborate what they’ve said. Neither of them has any evidence other than their assertion that they witnessed this, and they have less credibility in my mind than Judge Kavanaugh, because they both admit they had been drinking when these incidents allegedly occurred, while Kavanaugh says it didn’t happen.  I say “credibility in my mind” because I don’t know either these women or Judge Kavanaugh personally, so I only have the information contained in news articles on which to assess credibility.

The third accuser has prepared an affidavit. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kavanaugh-accuser-michael-avenatti-reveals-julie-swetnick-today-2018-09-26/

She was careful to never say whether or not she had been drinking alcohol at the parties where she allegedly saw Judge Kavanaugh assault and gang rape women. The question of alcohol consumption is highly relevant for determining her credibility as a witness, and the fact that she was at a “party environment” suggests to me that she probably was drinking alcohol. If she had NOT been drinking, then it would make sense to put that in her affidavit, because it would make her much more credible.

If she were subject to cross-examination, the FIRST question I’d ask her is whether she had been drinking alcohol when she witnessed these things, and how much? That goes directly to her credibility given the memory impairing effects of alcohol.

Additionally, she states in line 14 of her affidavit that “I am aware of other witnesses that can attest to the truthfulness of each of the statements above.” But, she doesn’t say WHO those people are. Why not? It would instantly make her story more credible if she gave names of other witnesses who could corroborate what she’s saying. The fact that she doesn’t do so makes her story very suspicious.

The fact that she was willing to sign an affidavit, and it is therefore “sworn”, doesn’t make it more credible. Since the affidavit is not being used for any lawsuit or for any legal proceeding, I doubt she could be prosecuted for perjury, if it were shown she was lying. If anything in the affidavit was shown to be a lie, none of the lies would be considered “material”. For instance, someone could sign an affidavit saying “I swear that the sky is red,” and then post it on the Internet, but I don’t think that would make them guilty of perjury because the statement “the sky is red”, while a lie, isn’t material to anything from a legal standpoint. (There is no lawsuit where the color of the sky is an issue.)

Given the fact that she doesn’t say if she was drinking alcohol when she witnessed these things, and given the fact that she claims there were other witnesses, but didn’t name them, I regard her entire affidavit as suspect. Any reasonable person who wasn’t lying would know that others would want to know these things and would state them in the affidavit.

She has yet to give an interview. This is also very suspicious and makes what she is saying suspect. It appears that she isn’t willing to let reporters ask her any of the basic questions that are raised from reading her affidavit. Although, I’ve heard, she will give an interview on Sunday for a pay cable channel. (This also sounds strange to me.) At any rate, I hope she is asked some of these basic questions.

These are the three accusers that have come out to date. I find none of them to be credible based on the news stories I’ve seen. I am not saying they are lying. I’m saying they have not presented any credible evidence for what they are saying. I therefore regard their statements as “arbitrary” -having no evidence to back them up. Before I’m prepared to treat a man as a criminal in my personal or professional life, and denounce him and avoid him, I need some level of actual evidence to demonstrate that what the speaker is saying is true.

The other issue in my mind is: Does any of this matter?. All of these incidents of alleged rape or attempted rape are well outside the statute of limitations for prosecution. The only way this matters is in Judge Kavanaugh’s advise and consent process by the Senate. Senators can hold hearings on the issue, but where do they draw the line? Do they have to have a hearing on every outlandish accusation made by any person about a nominated Federal Judge before they can perform their advise and consent role? What if someone claimed Judge Kavanaugh was an alien sent here to take over the world? Should an obvious nut be allowed to testify? Senators have to assess credibility of potential witnesses based on news reports like the ones I’ve cited. Then they have to come up with some standard of “probable cause” on who to have as a witness, and I think, based on that, no reasonable Senator could even regard these women as credible enough to testify at a hearing.

Three Views of The Concept of “Individual Rights”

There are essentially two views on individual rights today:

(1) They are provided by positive law, by a majority or super-majority. So, for instance, you have rights because a super-majority of people ratified the Constitution and that is respected down to today.

(2) They are based in some sort of “transcendent morality”. Provided by god or something like that. Without a supreme being there would be no rights.

Group 2 will criticize group 1 by saying that they don’t actaully advocate rights since they are just permissions granted by a majority (or super-majority) of people. Group 1 will criticize group 2 by saying that there is no scientific evidence for this “transcendent morality” that supposedly establishes rights.

The criticism that both of these groups make of the other has some merit. Since there is no evidence of god and it must be accepted on faith, which is nothing more than somebody’s feelings, then this view of rights seems to have no basis other than in one’s feelings. If rights have no basis other than in the majority’s feelings, then they are only necessary so long as the majority feels that way.

Ayn Rand proposed a different approach. She presents rights as an aspect of her overall system of morality. Moral principles are essential according to Rand because: (1) “Existence exists”. In other words reality is what it is, and has a certain nature. (2) Human beings also have a certain nature, and *if* they want to live, they need to take certain actions. (Grow crops, hunt for animals, build shelter, make clothing, etc.) Human beings must adopt certain “mental strategies” or “guides to action” that will generally lead them to obtain the things they need to live. These “guides to action” are necessary because the human mind has trouble dealing with numerous concrete things in reality without tying them together mentally and recognizing that they are sufficiently similar to other concrete things to be treated the same. For instance, if you have no concept of, “tiger”, then you will treat every such animal you encounter as behaviorally and physically unrelated to the previous tigers you’ve encountered, and you will fail to recognize the benefits and dangers of being around such an animal, and will tend not to deal with tigers succesfully.

Such “mental strategies” or “guides to action” can be called “virtues”. The dictionary has various definitions of “virtue”, but the closest one to what is meant here is “a good or useful quality of a thing.” A human being has a “good or useful quality” if he adopts these guides to action because they will help him to live. For instance, human beings must judge others to determine if they are a benefit or a danger to their survival. This is the virtue (the guide to action) of justice. Human beings must generally refrain from lying when dealing with others in order to maintain their trust so that they will want to deal with them in the future. (This is the principle/virtue of honesty.) Human beings must act in accordance with these principles because simply holding them as ideals without taking action in accordance with them will cause your mind to slowly become disconnected from reality and will make rational thought more difficult. (The principle/virtue of integrity.)

Similarly, the principle of “individual rights” is a guide to action when dealing with other human beings. Since other human beings can be assumed to want to live just as much as you do, then you must give them an “initial presumption” that they will take action to maintain their lives. They will produce the material values necessary for their survival -property. Just as you must not have your property taken from you by means of physical force without your permission, so must they. As such, you must adopt a sort of baseline guide to action when dealing with all other human beings. This is the principle of individual rights, and the specific right that encompases property is the right to private property. (More generally, all rights are subsumed under “the right to life”, which means the right to live the life of a rational being.) If individual human beings are going to live in a social environment and gain the benefits of living together, they must have their individual rights respected:

“‘Rights’ are a moral concept — the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others — the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context — the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.” (Man’s Rights, by Ayn Rand)

As an aside, the concept of “government” comes in because there is a temptation to “cheat”, and violate the rights of others while hoping that they will still respect yours. For instance, there is the temptation to rob someone at gunpoint and take their property, or just to pilfer it while they aren’t looking. If you are suspected of this, though, then others will use force in retaliation to stop your initial use of force. Government helps keep people honest by promulgating a list of prohibited acts that are widely-recognized as rights violations. Additionally, it isn’t always easy for others to tell who the aggressor is and who the victim is in a given situation. For instance, if you come upon someone with a gun held on him, is he the victim or the aggressor? Perhaps the person holding the gun on him was just robbed, but perhaps he is the robber? Government is created to provide for an orderly protection of individual rights by a recognized central authority that everybody generally trusts to be a rights-protector.

Going back to where we started: How is this view of individual rights different from groups 1 and 2? Both group 1 and 2 tend to present the concept of “rights” as something that is “nice to have”, but as unessential to the task of living one’s life. Both group 1 and 2 tend to think that a working social order is somehow possible even without respect for individual rights. They generally see rights as “altruistic” -a restraint from complete self-interest. Group 2 says rights are a gift from god, but if they are violated by persons here on Earth, there won’t be any consequences for doing so. (You might go to hell when you die, is all.) Group 1 says that the majority of people just feel that rights are nice to have, but think that a functioning society is possible without rights, and might even be more “efficient”. Ayn Rand says that “society” is nothing more than a number of individuals, and if the individual cannot live in society, then there can be no society. Ayn Rand’s concept of individual rights holds that they are necessary for the individual person to live in a social context, and that that “society” is only good to the extent that it is beneficial for the individual to live in it.

In essence, both groups today are partly right and partly wrong. Group 2 is right that group 1 seems to have no basis for rights other than the whim of the majority. Rand’s conception of rights isn’t “whim”, but the “law of nature”, i.e., the law of identity. Human beings are what they are -they have a certain nature. If they are going to live in a social environment, then others must respect their life and property by refraining from the use of force “as an initial matter”. I say “as an initial matter” because once a specific individual has demonstrated with a sufficient level of certainty that he will not refrain from the use of force to deprive others of their life or property, then force can and should be used in retaliation.

A society that tends not to respect rights will not exist for long because the individuals that comprise it cannot survive. Rights have a functional basis in the facts of reality.

Group 1’s criticisms of Group 2 has merit insofar as group 2 can present no evidence for their “transcendent” basis for individual rights. I’d also note that regardless of whether Group 2 is right about the existence of god, if they believe that reality has a certain nature, and to the extent that they want to live, then Rand’s conception of rights should also be persuasive to them, and can form the basic intellectual foundation upon which a government can be constructed, regardless of whether we all agree about the existence of a creator.

Judging Men

Hugh looked up the length of the pipe. From his position, it really could be considered “up” because centripetal acceleration was at a maximum here. The pipe was a uniform two meters in diameter, and it ran from where he stood, on the inside of the outermost wall of the crew habitat, all the way to the engine. The crew habitat of the interplanetary space ship Maine was like a large, circular bicycle wheel with a long metal cylinder, about a fourth its diameter, running through and perpendicular to its center. The crew habitat spun relative to the cylinder, which was the unmanned, fusion-powered engine of the Maine. One end of the pipe Hugh was in terminated when it reached the engine cylinder. The other end of the pipe terminated in the irsing door that Hugh currently stood on. When the Maine was in “dry-dock” for engine repairs, and the crew habitat wasn’t spinning, the pipe could give quick access to an entry hatch on the engine. When the crew habitat was spinning relative to the engine, the entry hatch could periodically be seen by an observer inside the pipe as it passed over the hatch, but it would be impossible to open in the short time it was in proper position.

While the ship was traveling in space, the pipe Hugh was in served a less glamorous function. All along the pipe were small openings that allowed the material collected from the ship’s human-waste-removal units to empty into it. Centrifugal force and air pressure than forced the waste material towards the irising door, which was periodically opened to empty the material into space. It was Hugh’s job to see to it that the tunnel remained clear of obstructions and clogs. Every Tuesday, Hugh would clean a different section of the pipe, 15 meters ahead of the section he had cleaned the previous week. By custom, all of the apprentices on ship were supposed to take turns at this weekly duty, but the Junior Crewman in charge of making the duty roster each week had decided that Hugh would always clean the pipe. The J.C. had a grudge against Hugh because his father had once been laid off by the company Hugh’s father used to own, before the Chinese Prosperity Alliance Space Expeditionary Force had annexed the Earth’s moon and nationalized all non-C.P.A.-owned businesses.

(Read More: judgingMen-2017)

Corporations as Contract and Government Financing in a Free Society

The philosophy set forth in the fiction and nonfiction of
Ayn Rand establishes an underlying intellectual framework for a
free society. Rand was like a physicist who deals with broad
abstractions about the nature of reality. The engineer then takes
these ideas and builds, among other things, the automobile.
Also like the physicist, Rand the philosopher dealt with the
underlying ethical principles of a free society, but left many of
the details of how a government should be “constructed” to
future intellectuals in the field of law and jurisprudence.1 The
aim of this paper is to help fill in some of the details as to how a proper government should be constituted. Specifically, this
paper deals with the issue of governmental financing in a free
society.  (Read More: Corporations as Contract and Government Financing in a Free Society)

Why Act on Principle?

I recently said to a friend that any form of “gun control” is an initiation of physical force, and that allowing even a little initiation of physical force abrogates the entire principle of individual rights to life, liberty and property. When I thought about this some, I realized that the question might actually have been this: “Why act on principle at all? Why can’t you occasionally violate a principle without throwing it out altogether?” This is a good question, even if my friend wasn’t actually asking it, so I will endeavor to give an explanation to something he may or may not have actually been asking.

First, what is meant when we speak of a “principle”? I will start with an example and then move from there to a definition. Let’s consider the principle of respecting the property rights of others. I’ll reduce this to the following maxim: “Do not take the property of others without their consent.”

But, why shouldn’t I just occasionally steel when I can get away with it? For instance, when I go to the grocery store, I could take a few items and walk out without paying. If I stuck to stealing food, I might get away with this indefinitely. So why don’t I?

If I’m going to start stealing from the grocery store, I need to develop a methodology to maximize my chances of success. Lets take a look at my “game plan” for stealing from the grocery store:

When I go into the store, I have to check for security cameras.

I have to wait until employees aren’t watching. Once I’ve stolen the items, I’ve got to casually head outside, still checking to see if employees, store customers, or the manager have noticed me stealing from the store. These people are now all potential enemies to me –a threat to my existence- so I cannot trust any of them. I would constantly have to be “looking over my back”, checking to see if anyone noticed me stealing.

I have to develop a plan prior to going in, as this will reduce my chances of getting caught. So I will spend some time working it out. This is time I could have spent doing other things.

I probably want to go in beforehand, and scope out the store, but this could look suspicious -going in, looking around and then returning soon thereafter. So, maybe not?

What will be my “take” from stealing from the grocery store? I can only steal small items, so probably my “gain” will be less than $50.

There are also the penalties involved, if I’m caught. If I steal less than $50, then I am only looking at a fine in Texas, but the fine is up to $500, plus the store can sue me for treble damages and attorney’s fees. If I steal more than $50 of merchandise, I’m looking at anywhere from six months to a year in jail, plus big fines, plus the store suing me.

I think it’s legitimate to consider the government-imposed penalties like this in my analysis since I am not an anarchist -I actually think one of the major ways the government protects rights is by imposing sufficient “pain” or “cost” on the person committing the crime that they won’t want to do it. Criminal laws have a “deterrent effect”. (This isn’t the only reason for criminal penalties, however, they also serve as a “restraint”. For instance, locking up a murderer prevents him from committing more murders.)

Additionally, many jobs will be unavailable to me if I’ve been convicted of a crime involving “moral turpitude” like theft. Many employers won’t hire you with a criminal record for theft or fraud.

After any particular episode of theft from the grocery store, I might get $50 to $100 in merchandise, if I don’t get caught. I also stand to loose up to a year of my time in jail, plus all of the fines and civil penalties. That seems like a very “bad bet” to me. All of these “costs” associated with such a life of crime will also add up to feelings of anxiety about getting caught. Anxiety is not a pleasant emotion to feel on a chronic or long-term basis. (I also suppose I could eliminate the anxiety by refusing to think or consuming a lot of alcohol, but that means I’m really likely to get caught if I don’t think about how to get away with it.)

You should also consider the long-term risks of a policy of theft. You might get away with theft once or twice, but the more you do it, the more likely you are to get caught. It hardly seems worth all that pain for $50 of “free” stuff from the grocery store.

I’ve shown that stealing isn’t actually “free”, in terms of your effort and thought. There is actually a “cost” associated with every time you steal. There is the cost of all the mental energy and labor you expend executing your thefts successfully. There is the cost associated with the risk you’ll get caught. Furthermore, the greater the value of the things you are stealing, the greater the risk, because you will face more severe criminal and social penalties. More people will be watching, the more the valuable items, so the more effort you must expend. For instance, it’s a lot harder to steal from a jewelry store than a grocery store because everything is under glass. That means additional labor, time, and energy goes into a jewelry heist.

It seems easier to me to just work a legitimate job, and earn the money I need to buy things at the grocery store. Then, when I walk into the grocery store, I can just get the stuff I want, pay for it, and then walk out.

Additionally, as we saw, if you start stealing from the grocery store, you will wind up “juggling” in your mind, so many variables in trying to pull off a grocery store theft that it will overload your mind’s capacity to deal with all of them at once. This actually points to an important purpose that a “principle” serves. A “principle” is a sort of concept. A concept is a mental summation of relevant observed facts into a generalized “mental tag” -a word and/or a definition. (Although a “principle” is more of a “proposition” –a series of words.) It allows your limited mind to deal with many aspects of reality simultaneously, which would otherwise overwhelm it. You can deal with three or four concrete items as individuals in your mind at one time, but any more than that, and you cannot hold it all successfully. Your mind disintegrates into mental chaos without concepts, and when it comes to concepts of action, which is all I think a “principle” is, your behavior will become equally chaotic.

Given all of this discussion, I will define a “principle” as: “A consistent standard of action you use in the face of a particular set of factual circumstances.”

For instance, “Don’t take the property of others without their consent,” is a standard of action that I use whenever I face a particular set of facts. When I see a man-made thing that doesn’t occur in nature, and I didn’t produce it with my own effort, I do not physically appropriate it for my own purposes without the owner’s consent.

Can there be “exceptions” to this principle? For instance, if you break into a cabin when you are stranded in a snow blizzard in the mountains, have you taken the property of the owner without his consent? I believe this isn’t actually an “exception” to the principle, because “factual circumstances” are different from the grocery store example. You can articulate facts that make the situation different from going into the grocery store and taking groceries without the owner’s consent. The primary factual circumstance that is different is that you are willing to compensate the owner of the cabin at a later date for any loss, so it isn’t likely to be without his consent. (This also gets into the issue of what “consent” is, and whether the owner’s consent has to have a rational basis, but I leave that for another discussion.) Another “factual circumstance” that is different is that it is a “life and death emergency”, which means it is an extremely low-probability event that isn’t likely to occur very often –it is “life boat ethics”. (Remember, that part of the reason you don’t steal from the grocery store is you have to hide it, and the more times you do it, the more likely you are to get caught one of those times.)

By thinking of enough concrete scenarios like the grocery store theft example, I eventually decided that stealing just isn’t worth it. It’s better to adopt a general standard of action in my mind: “Don’t take the property of others without their consent.” I leave it to the reader to think through other examples of general standards of action such as “Don’t kill those who haven’t initiated physical force against you,” (i.e., don’t murder), “Don’t misrepresent facts to gain things from others,” (i.e., be honest), “Judge others according to a rational standard, and treat them accordingly,” (i.e., be just), etc.

How does my definition of “principle” compare to the “socially-accepted definition”? If you perform a “define: principle” search on google.com, you get some of the following definitions (as of 11-10-2016):

“…fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.”

“…a rule or belief governing one’s personal behavior…”

“…morally correct behavior and attitudes…”

“…a general scientific theorem or law that has numerous special applications across a wide field…”

“…a natural law forming the basis for the construction or working of a machine…”

These definitions are all essentially, compatible with mine, I believe. For instance, regarding the principle “Don’t take the property of others without their consent,” it is a “fundamental truth” that human beings must produce the material values necessary for their survival, because most of what we need to survive or flourish does not exist in nature. It is also a “fundamental truth” that human beings must use their reasoning minds to produce those material values, and that if you want to live with others they must respect your desire to live and you must respect theirs. (It’s also a “fundamental truth” that human beings are not omniscient, so they need an impartial system of laws and an institution with the socially-recognized exclusive right to the retaliatory use of physical force to protect rights.)

“Don’t take the property of others without their consent,” is also “…morally correct behavior…” If one wants to live, and if one’s life is the standard of the good, then, in order to live peacefully with others, you must recognize the property rights of others.

“Don’t take the property of others without their consent,” is also a “natural law” in the sense that it recognizes that the human mind functions by persuasion, not coercion. It is a “natural law” in the same sense that the law of universal gravitation is a “natural law”. If you want to build a rocket, you must take the law of inertia into account, because “nature to be commanded must be obeyed”. Similarly, if you want to have a functioning society, it must respect property rights.

Tying all of this back in, why would any form of “gun control” be an abrogation of the principle of individual rights? What is meant by “gun control”? Does it merely mean: “Prohibiting the possession of a weapon with an intent to commit a crime”?  The intent to use a weapon to violate others rights is the start of an initiation of physical force, and, if it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, it can and should be prosecuted by the government. Taking any physical steps towards the eventual goal of force being used to destroy the values of others is an initiation of physical force, and therefore a violation of the principle of individual rights. Anyone who has ever seen a John Wayne movie recognizes that you don’t have to wait for someone to actually shoot you in the gut before you can defend yourself. When the bad guy “goes for his gun”, John Wayne shoots him, and that is self-defense, not an initiation of physical force.

An example of an rights-respecting gun law is something like the statute found in the state of Vermont:

“A person who carries a dangerous or deadly weapon, openly or concealed, with the intent or avowed purpose of injuring a fellow man,…shall be imprisoned….” (See http://ago.vermont.gov/divisions/criminal-division/gun-laws.php, emphasis added, last accessed on 11-12-2016.)

This is a perfectly acceptable and appropriate law regarding the possession of a firearm. It only prohibits carrying a weapon if the person can be shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, to have the “intent” or “avowed purpose” of injuring a fellow man. (Presumably, “injuring a fellow man” here means injuries of one’s fellow men other than for purpose of self-defense.)

This, by the way, is why the government could investigate someone who built a weapon of mass destruction in their backyard. Such a device would not be necessary for self-defense. If you walked around with a nuclear bomb strapped to your back for self-defense, even a “low-yield” device, you’d blow yourself up as well as the mugger -and half the city. Your possession of such a device would create the suspicion that you planned to use it for violating the rights of others. There is no likely or probable need for such a device if you are an individual. Now, you might ultimately be able to show that you had an innocent reason for possessing a WMD, but you’d have to go before a court, and the government’s “prima facie case” of an illegal intent is probably satisfied just by showing that you have no business interest in building such a device. For instance, you aren’t engaged in the business of building nuclear bombs for the US military or some sort of mining or industrial concern. After the government makes its “prima facie showing”, the burden can rightly be shifted to you at court to show some reason that doesn’t involve violating the rights of others. (Additionally, you could face civil liability if you create a “nuisance” that invades or imminently threatens the property of others, which a nuclear bomb probably qualifies as.)

But this isn’t what the left means when they speak of “gun control”. What is generally meant by “gun control”, as that expression is used by most members of the Democratic party and the political left, is the following: The government will initiate, or start, the use of physical force against someone for mere possession of a device, in this case, a devise that uses a controlled explosion to release a metal projectile through a tube by means of an explosive material, such as cordite. The government will initiate physical force against such persons even though they have no intent to use the device to violate individual rights. The initiation of physical force by government takes the form of actual or threatened use of force, and, it will continue to escalate the use of physical force until you comply with its commands, or die -whichever comes first.

Here is how government works: If you break a law, you’ll be arrested (force). If you resist arrest, more cops will come to restrain you (more force). If you use a weapon to resist, the cops will use weapons to stop you (deadly force). Ultimately, all laws follow this pattern: “Do not do X, or you will ultimately be killed.” If the government says: “Do not murder, or you will be killed,” then this is fine because murder violates the rights of others. If the government prohibits things like guns and marijuana, then it says: “Do not own a gun or you will be killed,” or “Do not smoke a joint or you will be killed.” At that point you are being threatened with a violent death despite the fact that you are not violating the rights of others. (Like I said, possessing a gun with intent to commit a crime is different, just as smoking a joint and deliberately blowing the smoke in someone’s face is different.)

So what’s wrong with a little governmental initiation of physical force? You face the same sorts of problems that you face with the example of stealing from the grocery store, but this time it’s on a society-wide level. For instance, if the government says you cannot own a gun to defend yourself from a criminal, when there is no time to call the police to protect you, then the government is implicitly saying: “We’re willing to risk your life in order to satisfy a bunch of soccer moms who have an irrational aversion to guns.” How will this be distinguished from other people’s irrational desires that would involve violating your right to life?

Since no one wants to say: “Government officials can arbitrarily murder some people whenever they feel like it,” the legislature and courts will need to come up with some sort of principled distinction between the prohibition on the ownership of a gun for emergency self-defense and any other number of actions you might take to maintain your life. This is why our legal code has become so “Byzantine” with all sorts of “loopholes”, exceptions, and exceptions to the exceptions. Our legal code is mostly unhinged from any principles distinguishing what should be prohibited and what shouldn’t be because we no longer follow the principle of individual rights.

Additionally, once the principle of individual rights is discarded, the legislature will be constantly bombarded by individuals, and groups of individuals, all trying to appropriate the property of others. It becomes a system of constant “pressure group warfare”, a “cold civil war”, if you will, with a particular political faction gaining power and stealing from some to give to others. They will hold onto power, handing out political favors to their cronies, until some other faction takes over the levers of government and imposes their will on others for a bit.

As I said, a “principle” is a sort of concept, which is a mental summation of relevant observed facts into a generalized “mental tag” -a word and/or a definition. It allows your limited mind to deal with many aspects of reality simultaneously, which would otherwise overwhelm it. You can deal with three or four concrete items as individuals in your mind at one time, but any more than that, and you cannot hold it all successfully. Your mind disintegrates into a mental chaos without concepts, and when it comes to concepts of action, which is all I think a “principle” is, your behavior will become equally chaotic. When society-wide principles like individual rights to life, liberty, and property are disregarded, that society will become chaotic. Eventually the “cold civil war”, of political factions fighting in the legislature, will disintegrate into an actual, shooting, civil war, and people will form gangs fighting one another for the scraps of what is left of civilization, or a “strong man” will take over and the country becomes a dictatorship, with his gang appropriating the property of all. Either way, life will become nasty, brutish, and short without the principle of individual rights to guide us.

All Black Lives Matter, But Some Matter More Than Others

There is an aphorism that I find helpful when deciding what to focus my time and energy on. It’s the expression: “Pick your battles.” In my mind, it basically means you shouldn’t get caught up in minor conflicts and should focus on the “big picture” objective you are trying to achieve. You want to focus your time and energy on things that will most effectively achieve your overall goal.

I see something similar happening with white “liberals” and black “civil rights” groups that express concern over the “problem” of unjustified killings of black men by police. Are there bad cops out there? Sure. But, I suspect that the vast majority of cops are hard-working professionals. Are black men sometimes shot by police without legal justification? I’m sure that also happens. Everyone agrees that the unjustified killing of people in America, and the world, should be reduced to zero. But, what is the most effective method of achieving that goal? And, what does it reveal about a political movement when they seem unable or unwilling to recognize the most effective means of achieving the goal of reducing the number of unjustified killings of black people?

The “Black Lives Matter” web site is fairly short on specifics, in terms of what their goals are. They make a lot of claims but they back few of those claims up. For instance at “http://blacklivesmatter.com/about/” we are told:

“How Black poverty and genocide is state violence.

How 2.8 million Black people are locked in cages in this country is state violence.

How Black women bearing the burden of a relentless assault on our children and our families is state violence.

How Black queer and trans folks bear a unique burden from a hetero-patriarchal society that disposes of us like garbage and simultaneously fetishizes us and profits off of us, and that is state violence.

How 500,000 Black people in the US are undocumented immigrants and relegated to the shadows.

How Black girls are used as negotiating chips during times of conflict and war.

How Black folks living with disabilities and different abilities bear the burden of state sponsored Darwinian experiments that attempt to squeeze us into boxes of normality defined by white supremacy, and that is state violence.” (see http://blacklivesmatter.com/about/, last accessed 9-5-2016)

I couldn’t find any actual proof on the web site to back up any of these assertions. The biggest “head-scratcher” for me was: “How Black girls are used as negotiating chips during times of conflict and war.” Exactly what wars and conflicts are they talking about? What do they mean black girls are used as “negotiating chips”?

The Black Lives Matter web site does discuss why they were formed:

“#BlackLivesMatter was created in 2012 after Trayvon Martin’s murderer, George Zimmerman, was acquitted for his crime, and dead 17-year old Trayvon was posthumously placed on trial for his own murder. Rooted in the experiences of Black people in this country who actively resist our dehumanization, #BlackLivesMatter is a call to action and a response to the virulent anti-Black racism that permeates our society. Black Lives Matter is a unique contribution that goes beyond extrajudicial killings of Black people by police and vigilantes…When we say Black Lives Matter, we are broadening the conversation around state violence to include all of the ways in which Black people are intentionally left powerless at the hands of the state.…#BlackLivesMatter is working for a world where Black lives are no longer systematically and intentionally targeted for demise. ” (See http://blacklivesmatter.com/about/, last accessed 9-5-2016.)

There are numerous dubious assertions made here, but I’ll focus on the last one. The assertion that black people are “…systematically and intentionally targeted for demise.” The assertion here isn’t just that black people are accidentally or unintentionally being killed due to certain bad government policies. An example of an unintentional death due to bad government policy would be something like this: The state highway commission passes a regulation requiring roads to be made out of a certain type of asphalt, and it turns out that asphalt is more likely to cause cars to skid off the road and wreck.

“Black Lives Matters” is asserting that black people are being “…systematically and intentionally…” murdered -intentionally killed without justification. Since “Black Lives Matters” tends to focus on black people who die while interacting with the police, which is why they tend to use terms like “state violence” and “extrajudicial killings of Black people by police”, it is the assertion that black people are intentionally targeted by police for murder.

To be clear, intentional murder by the state has happened before. It happened during the “rein of terror” in post-revolutionary France in the late 1700’s. It happened during the Soviet famine of 1932–33 when forced collectivization of farms by Stalin killed millions. It happened in Rwanda when the Hutu-controlled government ordered the slaughter of ethnic Tutsis in 1994. But are black people being “…systematically and intentionally targeted for demise…” by one of the fifty states or by the Federal government? It seems highly unlikely, and I think the burden of proof lies with “Black Lives Matter” on that assertion, and they haven’t met their burden of proof. It sounds more like a “conspiracy theory” than reality.

The belief that the major problem facing black people in America is the death of black men during law-enforcement encounters has led to the rise of an associated “Black Lives Matter” group, “Campaign Zero”. (See http://www.joincampaignzero.org/, last accessed 9-5-2016; see also, http://reason.com/blog/2015/08/21/black-lives-matter-activists-release-pol, last accessed 9-5-2016.)

This group says:

“More than one thousand people are killed by police every year in America. Nearly sixty percent of victims did not have a gun or were involved in activities that should not require police intervention such as harmless “quality of life” behaviors or mental health crises. This year is no different. There have only been fifteen days this year when the police have not killed somebody. Last month alone, the police killed 100 people. This must stop. We must end police violence so we can live and feel safe in this country.” (See http://www.joincampaignzero.org/problem/, last accessed 9-5-2016.)

This group offers the following policy solutions:

(1) End Policing of Minor “Broken Windows” Offenses

(2) Community Oversight

(3) Limit Use of Force

(4) Indepenently Investigate and Prosecute

(5) Community Representation

(6) Body Cams/Film the Police

(7) Training

(8) End for-profit Policing

(9) Demilitarization

(10) Fair Police Union Contracts (See http://www.joincampaignzero.org/solutions/#solutionsoverview, last accessed 9-5-2016.)

Without going over all of these policy solutions in detail, I will note that some of them are worthy of consideration. For instance, requiring police officers to wear body cameras could be useful for both the officer and the civilians the officer encounters. However, there is clearly an issue of cost involved. Body cameras cost money, and the government’s funds are limited. So, the question is this: Is it worth the cost? Are we as taxpayers prepared to pay for body cameras for all police officers? Is this the best use of that money? I do not know the answer to this question, and this is why we have legislatures to help make a determination as to how to spend limited taxpayer money in a way that most effectively achieves the goals of government.

Is the major problem facing black people today the fact that some black males are killed by police? Even assuming for the sake of argument that some police officers are committing murder and intentionally killing black men for no legally justifiable reason, is this the major problem facing black people today?

This question is important to ask because, as I’ve alluded to already, resources are limited. Given the goal of reducing the number of unjustified killings of black people, is the best use of time, money, and energy, on things like additional training of police officers in use of force and not to engage in racial profiling when they pull black people over on the road? If we spend money on things like body cameras for cops will that most effectively reduce the number of unjustified black killings in America, given our government’s limited funds? How are most black people who are illegally killed in America killed? Is it at the hands of cops or someone else?

First, we should ask the following question: How many people are killed during a law enforcement encounter? The government tries to collect these statistics:

“After the passage of the Death in Custody Reporting Act (DICRA) of 2000 (P.L. 106-297), the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) began collecting data on deaths that occurred in the process of arrest.” (See http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/acardp.pdf, last accessed 9-5-2016.)

“From 2003 through 2009, BJS obtained reports on 4,813 such deaths through its Arrest-Related Deaths (ARD) program. About 3 in 5 of these deaths (2,931) were classified as homicides by law enforcement personnel. The remaining 2 in 5 deaths were attributed to other manners, including suicide (11%), intoxication deaths (11%), accidental injury (6%), and natural causes (5%). In three-quarters (75%) of homicides by law enforcement personnel, the underlying offense of arrest was a violent offense.” (See http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/acardp.pdf, last accessed 9-5-2016.)

Since 2,931 deaths from 2003 to 2009 during an “arrest” were homicides by law enforcement, this means that approximately 489 people per year were killed by police over 6 years, where the killing was a “homicide”. A “homicide” is not necessarily an unlawful killing. Killing someone in self-defense is classified as a “homicide”, and it appears that these statistics include both legally justified and unjustified killings by police. (The “…three-quarters…of homicides…underlying offense of arrest was a violent offense…” language suggest this.) But, even assuming that all of these homicides were unjustified police killings, that is 489 killings of people (of all races) per year by cops.

Lets compare these 489 killings per year, of people of all races, by cops to the murder statistics.

In 2013, 2,491 people in the US classified as “black” were murdered, according to the FBI. (See https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls,last accessed 9-5-2016.)

Of those 2,491 black persons murdered in 2013, the race of the offender was classified as “black” in 2,245 of instances. In other words, out of 2,491 black people murdered, 90% of the perpetrators of the crime were also black. How does this compare to the white murder victim rate? The same FBI statistics say that in 2013, there were 3,005 white murder victims, and that the race of the offender was white in 2,509 of those murders. This means that out of 3,005 white people murdered, 84% of the perpetrators of the crime were also white.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that all of the 489 persons per year killed by cops from 2003 through 2009 were black, and also assume that all of those 489 persons per year were illegally killed by a cop, as opposed to a police shooting in self-defense or pursuant to the cop’s legal right to enforce the law. How does that compare to the fact that in 2013, 2,245 black people were murdered by another black person? 2,245 divided by 489 equals 4.59. A black person is at least 4.59 times more likely to be murdered by another black person than he is to be unjustifiably killed by a cop. (Keep in mind, it’s actually much higher, since I made the “generous” assumption that all of those 489 people per year killed by cops between 2003 and 2009 are black and that all of those killings were unjustified.)

If you were betting on a team that was almost 5 times more likely to win than another team, you’d want to put your money on that team. It would be foolish to spend a lot of money betting on the team that is 5 times more likely to loose, and if you did so, people would question your motives and rationality.

So, why do “Black Lives Matters”, and white “liberals”, focus so much time and energy on the much less likely incidence of unjustified killings by cops rather than the much more likely incidence of unjustified killings of black people by other black people? I have a few possible theories:

(1) They are unintelligent. They simply cannot see the truth because they aren’t very good at making logical connections. There is no shame in this. Some people are just smarter than others.

(2) They are ignorant of the facts. They simply haven’t studied the issue in sufficient detail or have never been presented with the evidence. There is no shame in this, as long as one is willing to continue learning. Nobody is omniscient, and it’s impossible to know everything.

(3) They are irrational. They are deliberately, mentally, evading facts and refusing to make logical connections because it satisfies their unexamined and unquestioned emotional whims. There is great shame in this. Irrationality is a major vice. (It’s actually the major vice, but that is for another time.)

(4) Their actual goal isn’t reducing the number of black people unjustifiably killed. (This is actually just another version of theory #3.) Their goal is to find a scapegoat for the fact that there is a disproportionate amount of crime being committed by black people, and that most of that crime is aimed at other, peaceful, law-abiding, and respectable, black people. It’s a way for the “civil rights” movement to divert the attention of law-abiding and good black people onto something other than the fact that they are the victims of crime primarily at the hands of members of their own race. It’s also a way for white “liberals” to focus their attention and outrage on something that is more “politically correct” than the fact that black people commit a disproportionate amount of the crime in America, and that most of that crime is aimed at other black people.

I hasten to add, that with any group or movement, especially one with ill-defined goals and methodology like “Black Lives Matter”, different people within that movement can have different reasons for being involved. That means these theories aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. The movement can be made up of some mixture of people with mental states and goals that match all four of my theories above. It’s also possible there are other reasons, that better explain the facts, and I just haven’t thought of them. (I am certainly open to suggestions.)

A person’s time, money, and energy is limited. He or she should pick a cause that maximizes his or her goal. If your goal is truly to reduce the number of black people being unjustifiably killed, then you should focus most of your time, money, and energy on reducing black on black crime like murder.

How do we best reduce the number of black people being murdered by other members of their own race? I don’t have all of the answers, but I suspect many of them are not political solutions, which is probably why politicians don’t like to spend too much time on the subject –they cannot even appear to be doing anything to solve it if the problem must come from within the “hearts and minds” of individuals in society.

Some possible solutions that I see are:

(1) Ending the cycle of dependence and single-motherhood caused by the welfare state. That means ending welfare and requiring people to live with the consequences of their own choices, or to seek private charity if they truly are impoverished through not fault of their own.

(2) Changing attitudes about sex and birth control. Both the “left” and the “right” have some solutions that make sense on this front. (I also think both political groups share blame when it comes to educating young people about sex and when to have it, but that is for another time.) Young women should be encouraged to use birth control if they are going to have sex. (The “liberal solution”.) However, young women should also be encouraged to be more selective regarding the men that they sleep with, and to only have children with men they are married to. (The “conservative solution.”) If young unmarried women do have accidental pregnancies they should be encouraged to either (a) have an abortion, or (b) give the baby up for adoption. Although it is the subject of debate, it appears that there is a connection between being raised by a young single mother and becoming a criminal later in life. (See http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2012/12/the-real-complex-connection-between-single-parent-families-and-crime/265860/ ) It would also seem to make sense that a young boy without a reliable father-figure to model himself on is going to be more likely to make bad choices.

(3) Encouraging young men and young women to educate themselves and to instill “bourgeoisie” values of hard work and thrift.

There are others possible solutions I can think of, but that’s not really the focus here. I also tend to think that inner cities need more police patrolling, not less. But, I am uncertain. I suspect, but cannot currently prove, that a large portion of people, both black and white, are murdered by a friend or family member, and I don’t know how much additional police presence in inner cities is going to change that.

It’s not entirely clear in my own mind how to reduce the unjustified killing of black people by other black people, but it is clear to me that focusing on the relatively low occurrence of unjustified police killings of black people in America is an effort to direct attention away from a much bigger problem. The title of the blog entry is a reference to George Orwell’s short novel “Animal Farm”. At the end of it, the pigs who have taken over the farm declare that while “All animals are equal”, as the revolution had initially declared, “…some animals are more equal than others.” “Black Lives Matter” activists apparently believe that the lives of people like Michael Brown matter more more to the “civil rights” movement and white “liberals” than the lives of people like Jamyla Bolden, and there are a lot more of the later than the former.

An Analysis of Murder Rates Broken Down By Race

My purpose here is simply to look at the numbers and see if the murder rate in the US is proportional to what it should be, given the white population versus the black population. I do so without trying to theorize about the reasons why murder rates break down the way they do between the races. In a subsequent blog post, I plan on using this analysis to discuss the so-called “Black Lives Matters” movement and to attempt to determine if they are focusing time, energy, and taxpayer money into areas that will most effectively reduce the unjustified homicide rate of black people in America.

In 2013, 2,491 people in the US classified as “black” were murdered, according to the FBI. (See https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls, last accessed 9-5-2016.)

Of those 2,491 black persons murdered in 2013, the race of the offender was classified as “black” in 2,245 of instances. In other words, out of 2,491 black people murdered, 90% of the perpetrators of the crime were also black. How does this compare to the white murder victim rate? The same FBI statistics say that in 2013, there were 3,005 white murder victims, and that the race of the offender was white in 2,509 of those murders. This means that out of 3,005 white people murdered, 84% of the perpetrators of the crime were also white.

How does this compare to the proportions of population? Blacks make up roughly 13% of the US population. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States, last accessed 9-5-2016.) Whites make up about 73% of the US population. 5,496 people who were either black or white were murdered in 2013. (This is adding together the number of black people and white people murdered according to the FBI, see https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls, last accessed 9-5-2016.)

The total US population in 2013 was about 317 million people. Therefore, the chance that a given person chosen at random from the US population in 2013 was both “black” and “a victim of murder” is 2,491 divided by 317 million times 100 which is 0.00079% . The chance that a given person chosen at random from the US population in 2013 was both “white” and “a victim of murder” is 3,005 divided by 317 million times 100, which is 0.00095%. In other words, the chance that one was both “white” and “a murder victim” was about 1.19 times greater than the chance that one was both “black” and “a murder victim”. (because 1.19 times 0.00079 = [roughly] 0.0009401)

This 1.19 times number doesn’t show the whole picture, however, Thirteen percent of the total US population is black, which means there are about 41 million black people in the US. There are 232 million white people in the US in 2013. As already discussed, 90% of all black people murdered are murdered by other black people and 84% of all white people murdered are murdered by other white people. So, 2,245 black people murdered by other black people means that a black person’s chances of being murdered by another black person are 2,245 divided by 41 million times 100 percent is 0.0055%. 2,509 white people murdered by other white people means that a white person’s chances of being murdered by another white person are 2,509 divided by 232 million times 100 percent: 0.0011%. A black person is five times more likely to be murdered by another black person than a white person is to be murdered by another white person (0.0011% * 5 = 0.0055%)

Since 2,245 intra-racial murders were committed by blacks and 2,509 intra-racial murders were committed by whites, the total number of intra-racial murders committed by blacks and whites combined was 2,245 + 2,509 = 4,754. So, out of the total number of intra-racial murders committed by blacks and whites combined, the percentage committed by blacks was: 2,245 divided by 4,754 times 100 = 47%. Out of the total intra-racial murders committed by blacks and whites, the percentage committed by whites was 52%.

Since blacks make up only 15% of the population compared to whites (who make up 73%), this means that if the total number of intra-racial murders committed by blacks were proportional to the population, it would be 15% of 4,754 intra-racial murders committed by blacks and whites, or 713.6 intra-racial murders committed by blacks in 2013. Since it was actually 2,245 intra-racial murders committed by blacks in 2013, then the number of intra-racial murders committed by blacks was 3.15 times higher than it should have been given the proportion of the black population to the white population.(See http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf, last accessed 9-5-2016.)

The Bureau of Justice Statistics sets forth the percentage of homicides committed by blacks and the percentage of homicides committed by whites between 1980 and 2009. These figures can be found at page 12, Table 7 of “Homicide Trends in the United States, 1980-2008”, where it said that of all homicides committed in the US, 45.3% of offenders were white and 52.5% were black. (See http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf, last accessed 9-5-2016.)

Once again, since blacks make up only 15% of the population compared to whites, who make up 73%, this means that of all murders committed in the US, which was 5,723 in 2013, then if the homicide rate were proportional to the different racial populations, the number of murders committed by black people should have been 858.45 (0.15 * 5,723). But, the number of murders actually committed by blacks in the US in 2013 was 2,698.This means that in 2013, the proportion of murders committed by black people was 2,698 divided by 5,723 * 100 = 47%. Forty-seven percent of all murders in 2013 were committed by black people, despite the fact that they are only 15% of the population. The number of blacks committing murder in 2013 was about 3.13 times (2,698 divided by 858) higher than it should have been if the murder rate were strictly proportional by racial groups. (See https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls, last accessed 9-5-2016. The 5,723 number of murder victims in 2013 was obtained by adding together “race of victim” numbers found in the far-left “total” column: 3,005+2,491+159+68=5,723. The 2,698 number of blacks that committed murder number was obtained by adding together the “Black or African American” numbers in the “race of offender” grouping: 409+2,245+27+17=2,698.)

As I said when I started, I am not looking to analyze the causes of this or suggest what this should mean in terms of government policy. I am simply crunching the numbers in order to see what they are. I will save my analysis for another blog posting.

What Is Wrong With Prohibiting Persons on the “No Fly” List From Purchasing Guns

The Senate rightly voted down an attempt to allow the Attorney General to prohibit people on the so-called “no fly list” from purchasing a firearm. Let’s leave aside for the moment the fact that I don’t think this would stop any would-be terrorist from getting a gun (see Paris, France). Let’s also leave aside the fact that the two jihadists in San Bernardino California were not on the “no fly list”, so this law would have made no difference. Regardless of that, this is a terrible violation of Constitutional rights. The Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to own a gun. This important liberty cannot be taken away by the government without due process of law, and that due process must be adequate.

An examination of the proposed statute, contained in an Amendment to an unrelated bill, shows that the “due process” included was very weak. This provision starts near the bottom of page Page S8401 of the proposed Amendment:

“(b) In any case in which the Attorney General has denied the transfer of a firearm to a prospective transferee pursuant to section 922A of this title or has made a determination regarding a firearm permit applicant pursuant to section 922B of this title, an action challenging the determination may be brought against the United States. The petition shall be filed not later than 60 days after the petitioner has received actual notice of the Attorney General’s determination under section 922A or 922B of this title. The court shall sustain the Attorney General’s determination upon a showing by the United States by a preponderance of evidence that the Attorney General’s determination satisfied the requirements of section 922A or 922B, as the case may be. To make this showing, the United States may submit, and the court may rely upon, summaries or redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security. Upon request of the petitioner or the court’s own motion, the court may review the full, undisclosed documents ex parte and in camera. The court shall determine whether the summaries or redacted versions, as the case may be, are fair and accurate representations of the underlying documents. The court shall not consider the full, undisclosed documents in deciding whether the Attorney General’s determination satisfies the requirements of section 922A or 922B.”. https://www.congress.gov/amendment/114th-congress/senate-amendment/2910/text

This proposed “due process” has no automatic hearing, just the right to file a petition. A person’s right to a hearing is waived after 60 days of “actual notice” -presumably forever. It contains no right to even examine the documents being used against petitioner. Documents are examined by a judge “ex parte” -which means without the defendant/petitioner present. It uses a “preponderance of the evidence” standard instead of “beyond a reasonable doubt”, like in a criminal case. I am not even sure it allows for one to call witnesses in one’s favor or to confront one’s accuser in court, as required under the 6th Amendment. It’s about like the standard the Department of Motor Vehicles would uses to deprive someone of their driver’s license, which is not a Constitutionally protected right.

The “no fly list”, even as applied to its original intended purpose -flying on an airplane- is fraught with problems and possible Constitutional violations. (See https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-files-lawsuit-challenging-unconstitutional-no-fly-list)  The ACLU has argued that even its original intended purpose is unconstitutional. Furthermore, when it is applied to something like owning a gun, which is a specifically enumerated right under the Bill of Rights, then it is just doubling down on what was already probably a bad law to begin with.

If this law had passed, what would have been next? Imagine the following hypothetical scenario: What if the government decided to deny anyone on the no-fly list a computer because terrorists use computers to meet each other and conspire to commit their crimes? This would clearly have First Amendment freedom of speech and freedom of association implications, and the level of due process required to restrict that freedom are on a par with what would be required before you can send someone to prison. Similarly, the due process required prior to restrict someone’s Second Amendment rights, must be on an equal level.