More Reflections on Police

In the case of the St. Paul killing, the officer radioed that he was stopping a car because the driver looked like a suspect in a robbery. The suspect evidently was black and had a wide nose. That the officer could see the driver was black is probable but that he could see a wide nose (at what distance?) is far less probable. If the suspect had been white, how many white drivers would the officer have pulled over? Racial profiling is not a good thing and we must admit that it exists. I have seen local police pull over blacks and browns regularly in our community.

The officer pulled his gun and pointed it into the car. Police need to stop pulling their guns and pointing them at people. When you point a loaded and armed gun at someone, you intend to shoot them. Police need to keep their guns holstered until they actually intend to shoot someone. I once walked into a gas station in Mammoth Lakes only to find a policeman pointing his gun at a young hispanic man who was standing by the counter. I was perhaps three feet behind the officer. Think of how many different ways this scenario could have gone wrong.

The whole concept of the criminal justice system seems to have gone out the window. When a violent crime is committed, there is no concern about taking the criminal prisoner and putting him/her up for trial. Killing the criminal is the only option considered. How many cases do you remember when the police took one of these people into custody? How many, when they simply killed the person? In Dallas, they didn’t bother to wait him out; they rigged a robotic bomb and blew him up. So much for bringing people to “justice.”

And finally, when an officer does mortal harm to someone who was unarmed and innocent or who had just committed some petty offense, the officer ought to pass through a criminal justice system like any other person. But this is not the way things happen. The police community immediately comes to the defense of the officer and the court system is disposed to favor his/her version of the facts. In all the officer-involved deaths of black men, over the last few years, NO officer has ever been found guilty or been punished. Doesn’t that sound a bit extraordinary? One of the biggest things that the police community could do in order to establish a better relationship with the communities they serve would be to actually acknowledge that officers do occasionally commit criminal acts and that they should be tried and punished for this.

The great majority of police officers are good people who obey the law and serve their communities. Are they willing to say that the great majority of black people in their communities are also law obeying good people? Can there be some respect?

Reflections on Bernie Sanders

I have always had a great deal of respect for Bernie Sanders — the independent from Vermont. But I have lost some of that respect in the waning months of the primary process. His message was a good message, but the more threatened he became the more aggressively he tore into Clinton. That was not his “message” just raw ego and politics.Now that the California primary is over and Clinton has possession of more delegates than she needs, Bernie should do everything he can to unify the party and help to defeat Trump. Instead, he seems bound and determined to press onward with his campaign no matter what the consequences might be. But why should he care about the Democratic Party; he’s not really a Democrat anyway.

Bernie wants a revolution in this country, quite literally. And that is a good thing; we need a real revolution. But I do not believe a revolution will happen by just electing a Bernie-character as President. First and foremost, the President just is not that powerful. Secondly, you have to have a supportive Congress. But there is a far deeper issue resisting revolution and that is the american people themselves. The division between right and left is deeper than ever and it is becoming violent. There will be no significant revolution until the people are more unified.Bernie or no Bernie.

I believe in Bernie’s revolution —- getting money out of politics and out of government, getting real health care for everyone, funding education widely, elevating economic conditions for all and taming the ultra rich. And I would add to this making corporations responsible to our nation instead of taking advantage of “globalization” to escape responsibility, re-building our infrastructure, and giving our people work that can make them proud.

But the issue is convincing Americans that these are good ideas and attainable strategies. That is a really tough problem the way many Americans think today. Bernie can’t solve that problem, nor can Hillary. But Bernie has done one great thing; he has ignited the younger generations who may be able to advance these issues in the future if only they will hold to their convictions.

Trump, Hitler, and Fascism

After the Second World War, Americans all wondered how the German people could have been so foolish as to allow Hitler and the Nazi Party to take over the country and carry them into a devastating war.

Unfortunately, I think we are now finding out how for ourselves. But what is really, really dangerous is that, while Hitler required quite a few years to build up a sufficient military, Trump (if he becomes president) will inherent a living military of enormous proportions, ready for use at a moment's notice.

Hitler was just a single individual and could not possibly have done what he did without massive popular support. Likewise, Trump is just a single individual, but what is truly staggering about the American scene today is the massive amount of support that stands with him. In a serious way, the Republican Party is to blame for this. Trump has just harvested the jealousy, hatred, and violence that the Republicans have been fostering for decades.

Trump may lose the nomination or he may lose the election, if nominated, but what is left after that will not be a pretty sight. This nation stands at the brink of Fascism and, unless something happens to change that direction, someone, sometime is going to be able to tip the balance completely over.

Libertarianism

I have been reading “The Libertarian Mind” by David Boaz, Executive Vice President of the Cato Institute with the hope that I might understand what so-called Libertarians actually believe. I’ll confess they mostly sound like anarchists to me — that is, they seem to want no government whatsoever. So I was mightily surprised, only a couple pages into the book, to find Boaz quoting from John Locke.

“[T] he end of Law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge Freedom: For in all the states of created beings capable of Laws, where there is no Law, there is no Freedom: For Liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others which cannot be, where there is no Law: But Freedom is not, as we are told, A Liberty for every Man to do what he lists: (For who could be free, when every other Man’s Humour might domineer over him?) But a Liberty to dispose, and order, as he lists, his Persons, Actions, Possessions, and his whole Property, within the Allowance of those Laws under which he is; and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary Will of another, but freely follow his own.”

Boaz asserts that freedom is natural and primary and that “it’s the exercise of power, not the exercise of freedom, that requires justification.” What Locke asserted and Boaz apparently agrees with is that freedom cannot exist without laws because laws are designed to protect us and expand our freedom to act and possess. This is essentially the traditional belief of political philosophers, starting with Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, that a “state of nature” leads always to a “state of war” in which people have little freedom because of greed and intrusion of others.

I agree with Boaz that the exercise of power needs to be justified, and this is why government by the people is essential. Laws should have a purpose that the people accept. Government — the maker and administrator of laws — should be representative of the people’s will. Libertarians, after all, should not despise government but should work to make government better — granting that “better” may mean “less.”

It seems to me that the basic problem in this discussion is the fact that every American faces at least three forms of government. I pay taxes to local, state, and Federal agencies. I live under local laws that prescribe social behaviors and property rights and limitations (e.g., zoning laws). I live under state laws that dictate rules of the road, entrance to state owned properties, etc. Federal laws rule over export and import of goods, inter-state commerce, and civil rights. Generally, we understand that this distribution of powers relates to local, state-wide, and national “interests.” Automobile safety standards are a national interest because automobiles are used everywhere. On the other hand, boating safety guidelines may reasonably be maintained by the states or localities in which boats are used. [An interesting exception to this reasoning is Lake Tahoe, which being bounded by two states is under the jurisdiction of the US Coast Guard.] There is always jealousy in a lower level of government against the next government higher, which seeks to intrude upon the smaller community’s interests. Am I a Claremonter first, a Californian second, and an American third? Or am I an American who happens to live in Claremont, California?

It is really the Federal government that sets the tone of what it is to be an American by defining American “interests” and guaranteeing our freedom to pursue those interests using appropriate laws. This is what gives me problems with the current Libertarian movement — namely, it seems wildly hostile toward the Federal government. Suppose that I am gay and married to a man whom I dearly love in California. Then, suppose that Libertarians have had their way and allowed individual states to define marriage as they wish and, in particular, to prohibit gay marriages. For me, there is no longer a sense of being American because my freedom of union has been restricted to California and some other states that allow gay marriage. Federal laws define national interests in the sense that they aim at making it possible to travel and live throughout the country and enjoy certain freedoms. Advocates of “states rights” want to create enclaves that suit local or state interests in spite of national concerns. The present chaos in gun regulations — and non-regulation — is a great example. Not every American can openly care a gun but, in Texas, you can openly carry your gun into a university classroom.

It seems to me that it is time for Libertarians to stop hating the Federal government blindly and start telling us which parts of being American they think are unfriendly to their pursuit of freedom. 

The Question of Wealth

I have been discussing the morality of Capitalism with a fellow philosopher for some time now, and in particular, “profit” has emerged as an important issue. In this discussion, I allege that profit is related to “wealth.” That is, I think that merely receiving more compensation for a product or service than one actually put directly into that product or service is not itself “profit.” There is a “thickness” to the issue of “cost” and the whole structure of “cost” must be taken into account. 

An example that has come up in this discussion is a small farmer who takes in more than the actual cost of seeds, etc. My point is that the farmer needs to stay in business and, consequently, he needs to put something aside for poor years, provide for his family, and make periodic repairs and upgrades in order to continue in competition. All of these contribute to the “thickness” of cost. In this sense, the Capitalist needs to sustain his livelihood. If we call this excess compensation “profit,” we need to realize that there is nothing immoral about it. 

It seems to me that where the Capitalist strays away from the moral high ground is where excess compensation is used to accumulate wealth. But why is wealth accumulation a moral issue? The biggest problem here is that the Capitalist is probably paying the lowest wages and prices for labor and raw materials so as to create wealth for himself. If wealth is to be created, the morally right thing to do is to share the margin of wealth with all of those who are involved in the productive chain. This goal is possible in relatively small operations where people and sources are known and in a relationship with the Capitalist. 

In the big corporations, today, enormous wealth is created and it is quickly swallowed up by executives, who are paid ridiculously huge salaries and other benefits, and by stock holders, under the prevailing myth that the corporation’s only moral obligation is to reward their stock holders. The more desperate ordinary people become, the easier it is for corporations to leverage lower salaries. So the distribution of wealth becomes extreme. With extreme wealth comes political and military power — the formula on which the United States proceeds today.

The Oregon Refuge Affair

The Bundy brothers, true to their father’s (Cliven Bundy) spirit, have called a bunch of like-minded and well armed folks together to take control of a Federal Wildlife Refuge in southeastern Oregon. The excuse was support for two ranchers who have been convicted of several unlawful acts involving the refuge. However, the majority of folks in the occupation are from outside the area, and the ranchers themselves do not support the intervention. But the Bundy’s mission is way more than support for the ranchers and is actually a long-term campaign against the Federal government, in particular, Federal land-use policies. 

The issue of land ownership and use in this part of Oregon — like many parts of the West — is historically long and complex. There have been several good articles in The New Yorker and in the New York Times that have articulated these issues with fairness (I think). There is nothing I could add to these. My interest is in the Bundy mission itself.

The Bunds want the land “returned to the people.” That, in itself, is enormously complicated since one has to wonder which people should have the land returned to them. The Paiute tribe of Native Americans has a particular interest in that plan. But the Bundy’s are thinking about the more recent occupants, namely, the current ranchers and farmers. The main idea is that Federal government should withdraw and leave the land to free public access. Of course, they don’t really want “free public access” (I suspect) since they don’t want anyone else to encroach on the land that they believe is theirs. 

In a sense, what the Bundy’s want is a Marxist system in which the state withers away and the people are left collectively in control. But even Marx believed that the people would have to regulate the economy in certain ways so that all would be served their needs. How would the Bundys have that done? They have no answer to that, at least none that I have heard. Cliven Bundy just wants too run his cattle on Federal land without paying the government anything. But if the government abandons the land how will Bundy manage to protect his cattle from theft and keep others from running their cattle on the same land? I guess that’s what all those guns are for. The whole argument takes us back to the “social contract” where we have to choose between a state of war and life in a commonwealth under the rule of laws and institutionalized justice. Private property does not exist under the state of war; private property exists only in a commonwealth. The Bundys can’t have it both ways.

Police in America

In all honesty, I would be afraid to write this in a public forum, but no one reads my blog so it is OK.

Police have been in the news a great deal for the last year or more. There is little doubt that part of the phenomenon is a media issue. Once the media begins to focus on something, they bring forward everything they possibly can find. That is good, in one respect. Certain things need mainline focus. But it also has it’s dark side. It gives the impression that something is increasing in frequency when it is actually just the reporting that is increasing in frequency.

For all of that, there is clearly a problem with police conduct. It is by no means all police officers or even the majority of them. But it is also clearly, at the very least, a small number of police officers who are violent and lethal in the way they handle situations. That would probably not be a problem if these officers were dealt with fairly within the normal confines of our justice system. But that does not happen. In all the instances of officer-involved-shootings this last year, no one has been prosecuted. Frankly, the “justice system” is aligned with the police authority and will not prosecute, no matter what. And, worse yet, the police community simply draws together into what appears to be a massive gang and defends the offending officer. The word ‘gang’ is shocking, I suppose, but that is what police authority looks like. It is a very tight community that is ready to protect anyone of their won, no matter what; and members of that community seem to feel that they can do anything and any amount of violence against those (of the other gangs) they label as “bad guys”. 

“The officer felt threatened” — really? a tazered man writhing on the ground and on his face, shot in the back twice by a policeman?

There is nothing that ordinary citizens can do about this situation since the justice system is unwilling to do anything. I presume that 90% or more of police officers are not at fault here, in the sense that they would not engage in this behavior, but they are at fault in the sense that they do nothing about the gang mentality of police authority itself. Only the 90% of good officers can really do anything to stop this.