I sometimes wonder about Linda Greenhouse
She writes her First Monday article with so many rhetorical flourishes, it’s difficult distinguishing fact from fiction.
Laws, Millets, and Privacy
This ongoing series on Slate.com discusses a number of things which frequently come up on BeardofWisdom, but I’m on an Ottoman kick today so I’m going to concentrate on Wu’s discussion of Mormons and the Amish. He’s certainly right that our treatment of these groups isn’t precisely consonant with a law code based on the individual (and the centralized state). We don’t do very well accommodating intermediary organizations, largely because we tend view these as putting unwarranted restrictions on their members’ rights. In some ways they have to, or else postmodernity, by breaking down geographically bounded communities (even as it creates purely voluntary un-geographic communities), will be the death of them–as Wayne has pointed out, this will probably happen to the Gnostics/Mandeans soon.
Ironically, it’s also postmodernity that allows the Amish and the FLDS to survive. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the (successful) government attacks on the Mormon Church, and the less successful moves against the FLDS and the Amish, all came between the late 19th century and the mid 20th century. This was the heyday, especially in the US and Europe, of the drive toward consolidated, monopolistic, uniformly sovereign nation states–which can’t tolerate smaller intermediary institutions. Since the ’60s, we seem to have become disillusioned with this effort, and hence the tolerance for the FLDS or the Amish. But really this is just returning to the pattern of states throughout human history–there has always been this tolerance of autonomous communities, sometimes even institutionalized (also in Russia), by empires which couldn’t impose their will uniformly on all their subjects. Now we have the means, but apparently not the will.
There’s also a lot of historical precedent for the situation Wu describes with pornography laws in the US. I know there’s some history of Catholic states tolerating prostitution better than Protestant ones, but I’m more familiar with the Ottoman case. In theory, it was illegal for Muslim subjects (though not for Christians) to consume alcohol, but usually no one was bothered for drinking in their own home–not just because there wasn’t a sufficient police force to monitor this, but because there was an assumption of the sanctity of the home. (Ah, those backward anti-modern Muslims!) Exactly the same combinations of reasons we don’t prosecute “normal” pornography on the internet.
So I don’t think any of this is really new, just a return to premodernity and the natural state of human societies. As long as I’m wandering all over the place, I’ll return to the Amish/FLDS situation: don’t the benefits of federalism also apply here? And isn’t federalism just a rationalistic, codified, modern recognition of this ancient tendency toward divided sovereignty?
If You Have Nothing to Hide, What Are You Worried About?
From the Washington Post:
The U.S. government is collecting electronic records on the travel habits of millions of Americans who fly, drive or take cruises abroad, retaining data on the persons with whom they travel or plan to stay, the personal items they carry during their journeys, and even the books that travelers have carried, according to documents obtained by a group of civil liberties advocates and statements by government officials…
But new details about the information being retained suggest that the government is monitoring the personal habits of travelers more closely than it has previously acknowledged. The details were learned when a group of activists requested copies of official records on their own travel. Those records included a description of a book on marijuana that one of them carried and small flashlights bearing the symbol of a marijuana leaf…
The DHS database generally includes “passenger name record” (PNR) information, as well as notes taken during secondary screenings of travelers. PNR data — often provided to airlines and other companies when reservations are made — routinely include names, addresses and credit-card information, as well as telephone and e-mail contact details, itineraries, hotel and rental car reservations, and even the type of bed requested in a hotel…
Ann Harrison, the communications director for a technology firm in Silicon Valley who was among those who obtained their personal files and provided them to The Post, said she was taken aback to see that her dossier contained data on her race and on a European flight that did not begin or end in the United States or connect to a U.S.-bound flight…
Zakariya Reed, a Toledo firefighter, said in an interview that he has been detained at least seven times at the Michigan border since fall 2006. Twice, he said, he was questioned by border officials about “politically charged” opinion pieces he had published in his local newspaper. The essays were critical of U.S. policy in the Middle East, he said. Once, during a secondary interview, he said, “they had them printed out on the table in front of me.”
Not only is it invasive, you’re being forced to pay for it.
Also, I think it’s great when security notices that passengers are carrying “small flashlights bearing the symbol of a marijuana leaf”, but can’t find fake bombs. Don’t you?
Kid dealing drugs? Parents can lose their car (or cars!)
As drug dealers go, Thomas Roos was not very crafty.
During the summer of 2005, Roos, then 24, was arrested four times in four months, usually passed out behind the wheel in cars loaded with drugs, cash, cellphones and a drug-dealing ledger.
He was so blatant about it, in fact, that drug investigators in Snohomish County believed his parents should have yanked the keys to their cars. When the parents didn’t, the officers seized the vehicles under drug-forfeiture laws.
That action led to an unusual question for the state Court of Appeals: Should parents be punished for the actions of a wayward son?
The three-judge panel this week said yes, rejecting Alan and Stephne Roos’ argument that they were unwitting victims, and all but chastised them for not exercising more tough love.
The ruling cost the Rooses, of Bothell, their 2004 Nissan Sentra and a 1970 Chevrolet Chevelle “muscle car,” as well as more than $34,000 in attorney fees to fight what their attorney deemed a ruling that “stretches the bounds of logic.”
After one arrest his mom told him not to drive the Nissan and his dad bought steering locks for both the cars, but it wasn’t enough. In the next two months he was arrested twice - once in the Nissan and once in the Chevelle.
The court’s interpretation of drug-forfeiture laws could open up a Pandora’s box for future cases.
Drug-forfeiture laws, which are intended to take the profit motive out of drug-dealing, exempt “innocent owners” from property seizures. But that exemption doesn’t apply to people who “stick his/her head in the sand,” the appeals court ruled.
What is sticking your head in the sand? And will government officials get to make up a definition as they go along?
Sweet, I can’t wait.
UPDATE: Thanks to Derek in the comments for doing actual research and finding evidence that Thomas’ parents may not have been as innocent as they claimed. I’ll quote Derek in full here.
So here’s the court’s actually holding: “We hold that a claimant may not successfully invoke the innocent owner exception to prevent forfeiture of a vehicle where the claimant knew or should have known that the vehicle was being used to acquire possession of controlled substances.”
Here’s the evidence cited that they “should have known,” if not that they actually knew.
“If you know that your son was convicted of delivering a controlled substance as a juvenile, your son is being very secretive, your son is not living at home, your son has been stealing mail and erasing voice mail messages for over two years, your son is unemployed, and as of July 3, 2005, your son has been arrested twice since June 10th with drugs and large sums of cash on his person, how can you ignore the reality and claim to be an innocent owner when he is later arrested and your property is seized?”
Alan testified that he gave Thomas permission to use the vehicle. Thomas testified that he used the Nissan on a daily basis, and sometimes kept the vehicle for several weeks at a time. [A] registration renewal form for the Nissan, bearing the handwritten notation, “For Tom,” was recovered pursuant to a prior search.
At a minimum, the information Alan and Stephne did possess, including Thomas’s past and present problems with drugs and his unemployed status, would have led a reasonable person to further inquire into the Nissan’s use in order to ensure that the vehicle was not being used for an illegal purpose.
The important context is that property the drug dealer uses is forfeited by default, unless you prove the exception of an “innocent owner.”
Derek also makes a nice point that “sticking your head in the sand” is not the Pandora’s box I made it out to be.
Sorry, the Feds Don’t Like You — So We Can’t Fly You…
The folks over at Daily Kos seem to have a problem with the items mentioned in a recent issue of the Federal Register.
I don’t blame them. To be honest with you, some of this stuff looks a little scary… Here’s a nice tidbit from the “Summary of Requirements”:
• Requirements of Covered Aircraft operators. This proposed rule would require aircraft operators that conduct certain scheduled and public charterflights to:
…
• When necessary, submit information from the verifying identity document to TSA to resolve potential watch list matches. In some cases, TSA may also request that the covered aircraft operator communicate a physical description of the individual.
• Not issue to an individual a boarding pass or authorization to enter a sterile area or permit an individual to board an aircraft or enter a sterile area if the individual does not provide a verifying identity document when requested under circumstances described above, unless otherwise authorized by TSA.
• Prohibit issuance of boarding passes or authorizations to enter a sterile area to individuals whom TSA has placed on inhibited status. Prohibit these individuals from boarding an aircraft.
• Comply with instructions from TSA to designate identified individuals for enhanced screening before boarding a flight or accessing a sterile area.
• Place separate codes on boarding passes in accordance with TSA instructions.
Curse the myopic people who think this will make them safe. Curse them all!
Saggy pants = jail time
At least in Delcambre, Louisiana, where you can get fined $500 or spend 6 months in jail for showing underwear in public.
Several cities and towns have decided low-riding pants is enough of an issue to warrant new laws. Personally, I think the scariest punishment is in Trenton, New Jersey.
And in Trenton, getting caught with your pants down may soon result in not only a fine, but a city worker assessing where your life is headed.
“Are they employed? Do they have a high school diploma? It’s a wonderful way to redirect at that point,” said Trenton Councilwoman Annette Lartigue, who is drafting a law to outlaw saggy pants. “The message is clear: We don’t want to see your backside.”
Having a government bureaucrat evaluate your life and give you direction? That should be frightening enough to get anyone to pull their pants up.
Volunteering at Walmart
Sorry, I meant to throw this up a while ago.
In Mexico, Walmart allows kids to volunteer as baggers. The kids earn tips from customers, are provided with insurance, and get bonuses for good grades in school.
Of course, people complain:
Although Wal-Mart’s worldwide code of ethics expressly forbids any “associate” from working without compensation, the company’s Mexican subsidiary asserts that the grocery baggers “cannot be considered workers.” The Mexico City government’s top labor official dismisses that contention as so much corporate hogwash. “To my mind, that is not an accurate description because the bagger is providing a service on the store’s premises that benefits the company by serving the customer better,” argues Federal District Labor Secretary Benito Mirón Lince. “In economic terms, Wal-Mart does have the capability to pay the minimum wage [of less than $5 a day], and this represents an injustice.”
Anarchy Unbound
For the August issue, Cato Unbound has Peter Leeson, Bruce Benson, Dani Rodrik, and Randall Holcombe answering the question of who needs government. I don’t want to get into all the details here (and don’t have to since the whole point of the discussion was to allow you to read the thoughts of four very smart people on the subject) so I’ll just point to two of the opening essays of interest.
Old enough to send someone to war, but not to go yourself?
This raises an interesting question: in what way are children not rationally self-interested? How can we justify depriving any of them of their natural rights?