Category Archives: Law

What the Supreme Court Got Right in Its Indian Tribe Ruling, by Ryan McMaken

No, the Supreme Court didn’t just give half of Oklahoma to an Indian tribe. From Ryan McMaken at mises.org:

The US Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that Jimcy McGirt was wrongfully convicted in an Oklahoma state court of three serious sexual offenses. McGirt argued that his trial should have taken place in federal court because he is a member of the Seminole Nation and the crimes in question took place on Indian tribal lands, which are not subject to state law in certain cases.

The court agreed with McGirt and it recognized these tribal lands as potentially constituting much of the eastern half of Oklahoma, including parts of Tulsa. The implications of the ruling are sizable, although not as sizable as the media is making them out to be.

The media is now filled with headlines like “Court Rules That about Half of Oklahoma Is Native American Land” and “Court Rules That Large Swath of Oklahoma Belongs to Indian Reservation.”

Headlines like these are likely to conjure up images of non-Indians being rounded up and kicked off reservation lands, homes expropriated, and worse.

But Thursday’s ruling doesn’t even come close to handing over control of private property in eastern Oklahoma to a tribal council. In fact, the court’s ruling explicitly states up front that the decision is narrowly applied to matters of jurisdiction in criminal law.

Continue reading

Safety First is a Bad Ideology, by Diana W. Thomas

At what point do the costs of preventing or ameliorating a risk outweigh the benefits of doing so, and does it matter if someone else is bearing the costs? From Diana W. Thomas at aier.org:

bubble wrap

When you walk out of your house, or enter the public street, you are on shared ground, a community space. During the pandemic of 2020, community spaces that are private venues, like Disney, have closed down just as often as community spaces that are public venues, like schools and playgrounds.

Public and private distinctions do not make a difference. Risk is the key factor to understanding why common spaces are closed and likely to remain so, at least in the way we were used to. In what is called the asymmetric loss function, a decision maker’s cost of a mistake in one direction is many times greater than the cost of error in the other direction.

Individuals with asymmetric loss functions are extremely risk averse when it comes to potential losses. Individuals often employ asymmetric loss functions in everyday life. For most people being 30 minutes early for a flight, for example, is much less costly than being 30 minutes late.

But, because people are different, individuals decide for themselves how late they can arrive and risk missing a flight. Things get trickier when decisions regarding risk tolerance are made for common spaces and groups, because one size doesn’t always fit all. Weighing downside risks too heavily can be socially costly, because some valuable private activities are prohibited.

Historically and across cultures, individual risk-taking is associated with growth and prosperity while minimizing risk and emphasizing potential social losses is not. In the last several decades, public tolerance of risk has shifted towards lower socially acceptable levels of risk-taking and in the long run, these changes may leave us all worse off.

Continue reading

Doug Casey on the Dangers of Global Regulation

Regulation is almost always counterproductive, whether it’s global or not. From Doug Casey at caseyresearch.com:

Rachel’s note: Regular readers know Doug Casey believes you can always bet on the government to do the wrong thing. Whether it’s the dangerous response to the COVID-19 pandemic, or overregulation abroad, government intervention often creates more problems than it solves.

And today, Doug discusses the dangers surrounding globalism… and explains why we actually live in a fascist system…

Daily Dispatch: Doug, we’d like to get your take on the question of “Globalist vs. Globalism.” Not so long ago, the right was in favor of embracing a global economy, in order to access cheaper labor and other benefits of outsourcing. Whereas the left was against that whole idea, as they wanted to be more protectionist in their local economy.

But now, to the average man at least, that seems to have flipped. Now the right seems to be more protectionist, and the left wants to be more global. Is that an overly simplistic take on things? What’s your view?

Doug Casey: Well, to start with, these are just labels that don’t really mean anything – other than deciding what variety of statism you want.

The truth is that individuals and companies should be able to trade with each other with absolutely no restrictions, interference, or comment of any type from governments. No quotas, no duties, no incentives… nothing.

Governments bring absolutely nothing to the party. It’s a sham, a myth, and a delusion that government acts in the interest of the country it controls. Government (and the people who control it) act in their own interests and those of their cronies. I’m sorry if that sounds harsh, and runs counter to what we were taught in grade school civics, or what sanctimonious Deep Staters like to repeat. But it’s the case with late-stage U.S. “capitalism.”

“Globalists,” “Globalism,” there’s barely any difference. It’s just busybodies deciding what products the real producers may or may not create, and what entrepreneurs can or can’t do. Saying one is good and the other is bad is the wrong way to look at it. It politicizes the question.

Continue reading

Return of the Archons, by Eric Peters

Once upon a time people were free to assume risks if they wanted to, and they had no recourse if things didn’t work out. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:

When one joins a gym one generally signs a waiver of responsibility document that says you agree it’s not the gym’s fault if you have a heart attack while working out – and so on.

Basically, you agree to assume the risk of working out there in exchange for being able to work out there.

If you do have a heart attack, it’s a tragedy. But the gym doesn’t get the bill – and none of the other members are required to submit to a cardiovascular exam before being allowed to hit the weights. Everyone isn’t presumed to be a heart-attack-in-the-making. Everyone is presumed to be healthy – and treated accordingly.

Another example that was once common was the sign at a pool that read: No Lifeguard on Duty – Swim at Your Own Risk.

And people did.

Why can’t they again – so to speak?

At gyms – at bars and restaurants. Everywhere.

Worried you might get sick? Then don’t go inside. Worried someone else might get sick? That’s their business.

Mind your own.

No one’s forcing you to work out or eat or shop among the unDiapered. And the Undiapered aren’t forcing you to take off your Diaper, either.

Those who go inside agree – on the record – that they’re not worried about getting sick and that they’re willing to assume the risk of working out or eating or having a cup of coffee with friends, unDiapered.

Continue reading→

‘Defund the police’ just means ‘I’m rich’, by Karol Markowicz

Ask any non-criminal living in a high-crime district if she thinks defunding the police is a good idea. From Karol Markowicz at spectator.us:

Wealthy white liberals don’t suffer the consequences of their fringe ideologies

 

Walk along the leafy streets of any neighborhood in so-called ‘brownstone Brooklyn’, Park Slope, Carroll Gardens, Brooklyn Heights, and you’ll see ‘Defund the Police’ in many a home window. Owners of $3 million dollar brownstones proudly proclaim their agreement with a fringe policy, designed to remove resources from police squads, as a solution to police violence. How exactly less funding for police will result in better policing is unclear, but virtue signaling of the kind that has rich people pushing for fewer resources for poor people doesn’t get tangled up in the details.

The details are specifically grim. The New York Post reported on Monday that ‘between Monday, June 29, and Sunday, July 5, the city saw 74 shooting incidents with 101 victims’. Those numbers are more than tripled from the same period in 2019.

But the city is largely not gripped in terror. The rise in homelessness and general lawlessness had been a frequent topic of conversation over the last year. The shootings are contained to only a few neighborhoods and the pain is not spread evenly among the residents of the city. And the left has to mostly ignore the crime rate lest their ‘Defund the Police’ pledge starts to look like cruelty.

Continue reading→

 

The New ‘Systemic Racism’ That Is Coming, by Pat Buchanan

It looks like preferences—racism against disfavored groups—will be making a comeback. From Pat Buchanan at buchanan.org:

Before our Black Lives Matter moment, one had not thought of the NBC networks as shot through with “systemic racism.”

Yet, what other explanation is there for this week’s draconian personnel decision of NBCUniversal chairman Cesar Conde.

According to Conde, the white share of NBC’s workforce, now 74% and divided evenly between men and women, will be chopped to 50%.

Persons of color — Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans and multiracial folks — are to rise from the present 26% of NBCUniversal’s workforce to 50%.

What does this mean?

White men will be slashed as a share of NBCUniversal’s employees from the present 38% to 25%, — a cut of one-third — and then capped to ensure that people of color and women reach and remain at 50%.

White men can fall below one-fourth of the workforce, but their numbers will not be permitted to go any higher.

To impose race and gender quotas like this on the workforce at NBCUniversal — half women, half persons of color — would seem to trample all over the spirit, if not the letter, of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Continue reading

A Country Not Salvageable, by Fred Reed

SLL doesn’t dispute Fred Reed’s conclusion that the US as we know it is done for. From Reed at unz.com:

What fun, what entertainment. And rare: One seldom sees the collapse of a landmark society in a rush of wondrous idiocy. Would I could sell tickets. Don’t look at it as a loss, but as a show, an unwanted but grand amusement.

The coup de grace in our ripening decadence is the current uprising purportedly, though implausibly, over racism. But never mind. The causes don’t matter. The deal is done.

Still, it is interesting to recognize that the protesters are, perhaps deliberately, confusing the incapacity of blacks with systemic racism. In truth, America has made the greatest effort ever essayed by one race to uplift another. Reflect: In 1954 an entirely white Supreme Court unanimously ended segregation. Later it found the use of IQ tests by employers illegal because blacks scored poorly, then found “affirmative action,” racial discrimination against whites, legal (hardly oppression of blacks, this). An overwhelmingly white Congress passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964, the Voting Rights Act the next year. A white President sent troops to Little Rock to enforce desegregation. There has been an enormous flow of charity to blacks: Section Eight Housing, AFDC, Head Start, hiring quotas, set-asides, sharply lowered standards in police and fire departments. We now have free breakfasts for black children, then free lunches, in addition to outright welfare. In aggregate they resemble a distributed guaranteed basic income. Which is interesting.

These measures sprang from the best of intentions. Most I think should continue. I for one do not want to evict blacks from public housing or have their children go hungry. Yet none of these programs has had its desired effect. The crucial academic gap has not closed, crime remains horribly high, illegitimacy verges on universal. This is a great shame. Blacks are decent enough people, likable if they don’t hate you, and phenomenally talented. But it hasn’t worked.

Continue reading→

What Is a Fatal Dose of Fentanyl? by Paul Craig Roberts

You can’t just ignore the medical examiner’s report on the death of George Floyd, but that’s exactly what the vast majority of people would like to do. From Paul Craig Roberts at paulcraigroberts.org:

From the newly-released transcripts that are part of a legal filing by Lane’s attorney, Earl Gray, who has requested that the Hennepin County District Court dismiss the case against his client:

The transcripts reveal that as the officers forced Floyd into the vehicle, the 46-year-old black man said: “I can’t breathe” and “I want to lay on the ground.

Here is a toxicology report on deaths from fentanyl overdose: https://ndews.umd.edu/sites/ndews.umd.edu/files/ndews-hotspot-unintentional-fentanyl-overdoses-in-new-hampshire-final-09-11-17.pdf

The report says:

“Despite the ubiquitous presence of multiple drugs in these decedents, the effects of fentanyl were evidently so strong that there were no statistical differences in the fentanyl level (mean and standard deviation) with or without the presence of these co-intoxicants. The range of fentanyl levels was wide, from 0.75 to 113 ng/mL, with an average of 9.96 ng/mL; nevertheless, the distributions of fentanyl levels were statistically the same, whether fentanyl was the only drug in the toxicology or one of several synergistic co-intoxicants. This suggests that fentanyl presence alone seems to be sufficient to cause death, which are findings similar to those found in Sorg et al., 2016.”

Let’s see if we can understand what we are being told.  Fentanyl is itself so toxic that it is sufficient to kill without help from other dangerous drugs in the cocktail.  People who died from fentanyl overdose had readings from 0.75 ng/mL to an astounding 113 ng/mL.  The average death dose was 9.96 ng/mL.

According to George Floyd’s toxicology report, his blood contained 11.0 ng/mL Fentanyl, plus 5.6 ng/mL norfentanyl, 19 ng/mL of methamphetamine, and three other drugs.

Continue reading

Tyranny Without a Tyrant: The Deep State’s Divide-and-Conquer Strategy Is Working, by John W. Whitehead

American sheep have shown themselves to be quite willing to be herded down the chute and into the slaughterhouse. From John W. Whitehead at rutherford.org:

“In a fully developed bureaucracy there is nobody left with whom one can argue, to whom one can present grievances, on whom the pressures of power can be exerted. Bureaucracy is the form of government in which everybody is deprived of political freedom, of the power to act; for the rule by Nobody is not no-rule, and where all are equally powerless, we have a tyranny without a tyrant.” ― Hannah Arendt, On Violence

What exactly is going on?

Is this revolution? Is this anarchy? Is this a spectacle engineered to distract us from the machinations of the police state? Is this a sociological means of re-setting our national equilibrium? Is this a Machiavellian scheme designed to further polarize the populace and undermine our efforts to stand unified against government tyranny? Is this so-called populist uprising actually a manufactured race war and election-year referendum on who should occupy the White House?

Whatever it is, this—the racial hypersensitivity without racial justice, the kowtowing to politically correct bullies with no regard for anyone else’s free speech rights, the violent blowback after years of government-sanctioned brutality, the mob mindset that is overwhelming the rights of the individual, the oppressive glowering of the Nanny State, the seemingly righteous indignation full of sound and fury that in the end signifies nothing, the partisan divide that grows more impassable with every passing day—is not leading us anywhere good.

Certainly it’s not leading to more freedom.

Continue reading

Why the Police Must Be Removed from the Equation, by Jeff Thomas

Imperfect as they may be, the police are tired of being everybody’s scapegoat and whipping boy. From Jeff Thomas at internationalman.com:

In America, no one likes the police… not really.

There are many, perhaps even half of Americans, who conceptually support the idea of the police, but virtually no one likes what the police have become.

At one time, the fellow in the image above was America’s idea of the neighbourhood cop. Today, if one were to conjure up an image of a policeman, it would be a more Darth Vader-like image of a man whose face is obscured by mask, goggles and helmet, wearing body armour, and carrying an assault weapon.

Decades ago, the local cop was looked upon as a good guy – part of the community. He may not have been thought of as having been part of the intelligentsia, but he did receive his training under the concept of “serve and protect,” and for the most part, he behaved accordingly.

But that’s no longer so.

Somewhere along the line, policemen ceased to receive training under the heading of “serve and protect,” and now receive an entirely different form of training that focuses on control.

Not long ago, I watched a police training video in which police recruits were being led by a trainer, punching their fists in the air in unison, and shouting repeatedly, “I have the power! I have the power!”

And, unfortunately, that’s the direction the police in America have gravitated to – if not on a national level, then at least in areas of high population concentration.

Continue reading

%d bloggers like this: