This episode features a lecture by hip-hop artist Maj Toure from 2018 on the right to bear arms. He founded the Black Guns Matter movement in 2015 and advocates for 2nd Amendment education and information for urban communities. Maj has been featured in the New York Times, Breitbart News, National Public Radio, Fox News, CNN, and NRANews for his out of the box approach to 2nd Amendment advocacy.Open This Content
Why does American politics seem so deadlocked? The media mostly focuses on issues where Democrats and Republicans refuse to compromise because they strongly disagree: immigration, guns, health care. But American politics often seems deadlocked even when both parties agree. For example, supermajorities of both parties want to protect DREAMers, but they’ve never reached an agreement to do so. How is this possible?
1. Transactions costs. Hammering out a deal is hard work, so many mutually beneficial deals don’t happen.
Critique: Economists routinely appeal to these alleged costs, but how high can they possibly be? Seriously, why should it take more than a single day for the DREAM Act to become a law? Vote, vote, sign, done.
2. The hold-out problem. Suppose we agree that X is good, but you want X a lot more than I do. In this situation, it makes sense for me to demand some “compensation” from you even though we basically agree.
Critique: This might make sense for a year or two. But if we’ve failed to reach an agreement after many years of negotiation, you’d expect both sides to moderate their demands to cut their losses. Yes, they could conceivably be investing in their reputations for intransigence to secure favorable terms in the future, but does anyone seriously expect to see the day when one party finally submits to the other?
3. Insincerity. For example, perhaps Republicans only claim to want to protect DREAMers in order to seem nice and reasonable. In fact, however, they never genuinely favored the DREAM Act in the first place.
Critique: This is often plausible, but it’s hard to see it as a general explanation. Politicians have clear incentive to lie about their goals, but why would average citizens bother to lie in anonymous polls?
4. Partisan bitterness. The two main parties intensely dislike each other. Like a quarrelsome couple, they could find something to fight about at a fancy restaurant on Valentine’s Day. As a result, the two parties have trouble cooperating procedurally even when they agree substantively.
Critique: This is my preferred story. What I wrote about divorce a decade ago cleanly explains political deadlock as well:
Unfortunately, the Coasean argument overlooks a pretty obvious fact: Couples contemplating a divorce often hate, loathe, and despise each other. We’ve all heard of stories of divorcing couples deliberately destroying objects of sentimental value to each other. Indeed, many couples in this situation wallow in petty spite; they can’t stop bad-mouthing each other to anyone who will listen.
With these facts firmly in mind, how confident are you that Coase’s zero transactions costs assumption is remotely true? At risk of sounding Austrian, transactions costs are subjective: Bargaining with your mortal enemy hurts.
If this story seems grim, I should add that bitter politics has one major advantage over bitter divorce. Namely: Partisan bitterness throws much-needed sand into the gears of the state. Given public opinion, amicable government is likely to be big government. As long as political antipathy is too shallow to cause civil war, both libertarians and pragmatists should welcome it. Will Rogers once mused, “Be thankful we’re not getting all the government we’re paying for.” I’d add, “Be thankful we’re not even getting all the government both parties support.”
P.S. I’m well-aware that deadlock locks existing bad policies in place, too. But I see little political support for repealing such policies, and broad political support for adding new bad policies. Tragic, but that’s the world we live in.Open This Content
Episode 002: Join Jared as he discuss the statist dissonance that voluntaryists deal with day-to-day.Open This Content
This episode features a lecture and Q&A by economist and gun rights advocate John Lott from 2016 on his new book about the War on Guns and the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Purchase books by John Lott on Amazon here.Open This Content
If you don’t watch “the news” you might be uninformed; if you watch it you will be misinformed.
“News” is opinion. There’s no such thing as just presenting the facts; there never was. There’s always going to be a slant to it. It’s almost always a statist slant.
If they don’t honestly portray cops as a gang, politicians as thieving thugs, government as religion, “laws” as slavery, they are not telling the truth. They are opinionizing. Lying. Covering up the truth to protect the bad guys.
Any bland “news” story about the “arrest” of a drug dealer, and the drugs, cash, and guns confiscated from him, is a nest of lies– opinions, if I were to be nice about it. It will assume statism. It will assume the legitimacy of prohibition, “taxation”, government police, “gun control” [sic], “laws”, the “justice system”, and a hundred other things which shouldn’t be assumed.
They are selling their opinion to people who mostly agree with them (even when they feel they are on the other side), or who they are trying to fool into agreeing with them. It largely works.
I think that’s why you see “Right” vs “Left” in almost all “news”/opinions. All “news” comes from one side or the other… yet the sides are really the same. They are statist, anti-liberty bigots to the core. So the “news” gets people to arguing over which of those identical twins is correct, when they are both wrong.
Statists live in a statist bubble, even if they sample statist opinions from the “other side”. It’s still only statism.
Libertarians don’t have the option of living in a bubble. We get exposed to the other sides. All other sides. Constantly. Whether we intend to or not. It’s unavoidable. That’s why we are better informed than the uninformed or the misinformed statists. And it’s why the statists try so hard to ridicule our position. They have to, otherwise they might realize they are losers going in circles, chasing hallucinations.Open This Content
On January 28, home invaders murdered 58-year-old Rhogena Nicholas and 59-year-old Dennis Tuttle of Houston, Texas. Nicholas and Tuttle wounded five of the (numerous) armed burglars before being slain.
That’s not how the news accounts put it, of course. Typical headline (from the Houston Chronicle): “4 HPD officers shot in southeast Houston narcotics operation, a fifth injured.”
A number of claims relating to the fateful “no-knock raid” remain in dispute, not least whether or not Nicholas and Tuttle were, as the search warrant leading to the raid alleged, selling heroin from their home (their neighbors characterized them as quiet people who didn’t have lots of company, and scoffed at the notion that they might be drug dealers).
Setting aside those disputes, let’s give the benefit of doubt to Houston police chief Art Acevedo on two things.
Acevedo says that his officers “announced themselves as Houston police officers while simultaneously breaching the front door.”
And Acevedo admits that immediately upon breaching the front door, one of the officers shot and killed the residents’ dog.
Ask yourself this: If armed men break down your front door and shoot your dog, are you going to notice (if you can even hear) the invaders saying “police, police?” Are you going to just automatically believe the claim even if you do hear and notice it? Or are you going to act to defend yourself?
It was only after the officers’ violent entry and after one officer killed their dog that Tuttle shot and wounded the dog-killer and Nicholas attempted to disarm him. Both paid with their lives for their forlorn resistance to a gang of armed invaders.
Naturally, Acevedo blames the victims — and the availability of guns with which mere civilians might conceivably defend their homes and their lives from violent intruders.
No, the cops didn’t find any heroin on the premises, although they did claim to have found marijuana and a white powder that Acevedo thought might be cocaine or fentanyl.
No, neither Nicholas nor Tuttle had criminal pasts which might have justified a John Dillinger style takedown. Tuttle had no criminal record at all. Nicholas had a single (dismissed) bad check charge on hers.
The Houston PD brought guns, battering rams, and overwhelming force to what they didn’t even expect to be a knife fight. It was supposed to just be a quick episode of “law enforcement theater,” a show of force to show the mere mundanes who’s in charge.
That it went terribly wrong isn’t on the victims. It’s on Acevedo and company, and on Gordon G. Marcum II, the judge who signed a warrant specifying that police were “hereby authorized to dispense with the usual requirement that you knock and announce your purpose before entering” the residence.
Acevedo, Marcum, and the officers at the sharp end of the stick will never be charged with armed criminal action and conspiracy to commit same. But they should be. And we need a much higher bar for “no-knock” warrants, if they’re to be allowed at all.Open This Content